(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.5.12.선고 2015구합10964 판결

The part of the disclosure decision made by the Defendant on September 8, 2015 with respect to "the appointment of an attorney of the Ministry of Environment from September 2012 to 2014" concerning the information related to the Plaintiff among the information disclosure decision made by the Defendant on September 8, 2015 and on "the details of advice, such as the attorney of the Ministry of Environment and the adviser of the Ministry of Environment from January 1, 2011 to July 31, 2015" is revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. On August 17, 2015, A filed a request for the disclosure of information on "the details of fees paid or scheduled to be paid by the defendant to the defendant from August 17, 2015 to 2014, and on September 8, 2015, the defendant decided to disclose information on "the details of appointment of an attorney of the Ministry of Environment from 2012 to 2014" on the grounds that the above information constitutes information on budget expenditure of a public institution and cannot be deemed as infringing on a third party's trade secret.

B. B, from January 1, 2011 to July 31, 2015, on August 26, 2015, the Defendant filed a request for the disclosure of information on the number of advisory cases, the names of advisory pumps that the Defendant entrusted to the pump, and the fees for fees for each case. Accordingly, the Defendant rendered a decision on the disclosure of information on "the details of advisory cases, such as attorneys and advisers of the Ministry of Environment, from January 1, 201 to July 31, 2015" (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition in this case" and "the information related to the Plaintiff, which was the subject of the disposition in this case").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure as prescribed by the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Information Disclosure Act”), and the instant disposition disclosed shall be revoked as unlawful.

1) The relevant information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act contains not only information related to the currently in progress, but also information that could specifically affect the hearing, etc. of the Supreme Court in the event of case search, etc. on the website of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act, as it is related to the ongoing trial and is likely to significantly impede the performance of duties if disclosed.

2) The information pertaining to the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act includes the specific details of the case’s transmission and advisory case’s specific contents (the name of the case, the date and time of acceptance, the amount of retainers, the amount of contingent fees, the case’s fees, and the case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case disclosure) that the Plaintiff accepted from the Defendant and the case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case and advisory case’s case’s case’s case

In addition, when the information of this case is disclosed, the contents of the above agreement are likely to have business difficulties due to exposure to the plaintiff, private lawyers or law firms, while the information of this case is likely to have business difficulties due to being exposed to them.

Therefore, the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act, as it is likely to seriously undermine the Plaintiff’s legitimate interests if disclosed as the Plaintiff’s business and trade secrets.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act

The Information Disclosure Act provides for all information held and managed by a public institution to be disclosed in principle for the purpose of guaranteeing citizens' right to know and securing citizens' participation in state affairs and transparency in the management of state affairs. However, in light of the legislative purpose of the Information Disclosure Act, the principle of information disclosure, and the form and purport of the above provision, etc. of information subject to non-disclosure, in order to refuse information disclosure on the grounds that information constitutes "information related to a trial in progress where a public institution other than the court is in progress" under the above provision, it is not necessarily necessary to be included in the records of the trial in which the information is in progress, but it is reasonable to view that all information related to the trial is not corresponding thereto, but is limited to information that has a risk of specifically affecting the deliberation of the trial in progress or the result of the trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Du19021, Nov. 24, 2011; 201Du375, Mar. 16, 2013).

B) In this case, there is no dispute between the parties that the information of this case contains the case number, fee, etc. of the case in which the lawsuit is pending in the court.

However, considering that ① the case number, fee, etc. included in the instant information is irrelevant to the issues examined in the instant case, and ② even if the search of the case is conducted on the website of the Supreme Court by utilizing these data, it is not allowed to access the allegations or evidentiary materials of the parties related to the issues of the instant case, etc., the instant information cannot be deemed to infringe the fairness and independence of the trial proceeding by disclosing the instant information, or to have a specific risk that may affect the deliberation or trial result, and thus, the instant information does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 of

2) Whether the information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act

Examining in light of the legislative intent of "information subject to non-disclosure" in the Information Disclosure Act, "matters in the process of audit, supervision, inspection, test, regulation, bidding contract development, personnel management, decision-making, or internal review" in Article 7 (1) 5 of the same Act shall be deemed as an example of the information subject to non-disclosure. Thus, when a decision-making process is decided or executed, the meeting-related data provided in the process of decision-making or the minutes on which the decision-making process has been recorded shall not be deemed as the matters in the process of decision-making, but may be included as matters corresponding to the matters in

Meanwhile, in light of the purpose of the information disclosure system under Article 1 of the Information Disclosure Act and the legislative intent of the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) 5 of the same Act, “where there is a considerable reason to believe that the fair performance of duties would substantially interfere with the fair performance of duties” means where there is a high probability that the fair performance of duties would substantially interfere with the fair performance of duties if disclosed. Whether the disclosure constitutes such a high probability should be determined carefully according to specific cases by comparing and comparing the interests of fairness in the performance of duties protected by non-disclosure and the interests of guaranteeing citizens’ right to know, guaranteeing citizens’ right to know, securing citizens’ participation in state affairs, and securing transparency in state administration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du12946, Aug. 22, 2003; 2014Du4356, Feb. 26, 2015).

In addition, in making a judgment, not only the content of the relevant information subject to the request for disclosure but also whether disclosure may seriously interfere with the fair performance of the same kind of work in the future by disclosing it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du18758, Oct. 11, 2012).

B) In the instant case, the instant information is merely a material on the details of the case, which the Defendant delegated to the Defendant through the decision-making process or internal review process, and is not a material or minutes of the decision-making process or internal review process on the delegation of these cases. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant information is a matter in the decision-making process or internal review process under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act or any similar matter.

Even if the information of this case falls under each of the above matters, the information of this case contains only general data such as the number of transmission and advisory cases, case number, fee, winning, etc. which the plaintiff accepted by the defendant. In light of the fact that the defendant prepared the Regulations on the Appointment, Appointment, etc. of Attorney-at-Law and Attorney-at-Law of the Ministry of Environment, which is the Ministry of Environment's instruction, and specifically determines the criteria for appointment, remuneration level, etc. of the attorney, and carries out affairs concerning the delegation of litigation in accordance with these internal regulations, it is difficult to deem that there is high probability that even if the information of this case is disclosed, it is likely that the defendant might seriously harm fairness in performing delegated affairs concerning transmission and advisory cases. Thus, the information of this case does not fall under the information subject to

3) Whether the information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act

"Management and trade secrets of corporations, etc., which are subject to non-disclosure" under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Information Disclosure Act refer to all information on business activities that are advantageous to the disclosure of others, or all confidential information on business activities that are advantageous to the disclosure of others. Whether there is a legitimate interest to refuse disclosure shall be determined depending on whether there is a legitimate interest to refuse disclosure. Whether there is a legitimate interest should be determined strictly by taking into account the legislative intent of the Information Disclosure Act aimed at guaranteeing citizens' right to know and securing citizens' participation in state affairs and securing transparency in state administration in addition to the nature of the relevant corporations, etc., the need to protect rights of the relevant corporations, etc., the rights of the relevant corporations, etc., the competitive status, and the nature and nature of the information, etc., the need to protect rights of the relevant corporations, etc., the relevant corporation, etc., and the relationship with the administration, etc. of the relevant corporations, etc., with which there is a great need to monitor by citizens, and with respect to public-service corporations with strong need to accept such information (see, etc.).

B) In the instant case, the instant information includes the number of transmission and advisory cases the Plaintiff accepted from the Defendant, case number, case number, fees, and winning. These information may be favorable to the Plaintiff’s business activities because it is important business and business information on the actual performance and price of legal services provided by the Plaintiff, which is not known to the law firm, etc. in competition with the Plaintiff. Therefore, it may be deemed that the instant information constitutes the Plaintiff’s business and trade secrets

However, the following circumstances revealed by the purport of the entire facts and arguments acknowledged as above, i.e., (i) the Defendant determined to disclose all the data on the details of the litigation and advisory case entrusted to an external agency at the time of the instant disposition, and the content of the litigation and advisory case that the attorney-at-law or the law firm accepted by the Defendant is expected to be disclosed. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to be at a competitive disadvantage compared thereto due to the disclosure of the instant information. (ii) The Plaintiff has a special status different from the general company, such as appropriation of funds required for operation and business as a public institution affiliated with the Ministry of Justice under the Ministry of Justice established under the Government Legal Service Act for the purpose of supporting the State, etc. with the State’s litigation and legal affairs, and thus, the soundness and transparency of financial management is more required. (iii) Even if the instant information needs to be disclosed to secure the citizen’s right to know and the fairness and transparency of the Defendant’s business affairs related thereto, the information of this case cannot be deemed to be subject to non-disclosure under Article 7(1)7) of the Information Disclosure Act.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, the disposition of this case is lawful and there is no ground for the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is concerned (the plaintiff asserts that only the number of litigation and advisory cases that the plaintiff accepted from the defendant among the information of this case and the total amount of fees should be disclosed. However, in light of the nature and contents of the information of this case, it is difficult to find the grounds for limiting the scope of disclosure).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.