[1] The scope of information that a public institution, other than the court, may refuse to disclose information on the ground that it constitutes “information related to a pending trial” under Article 9(1)4 of the Act on Information of Public Institutions

[2] The meaning of "management and trade secrets of corporations, etc." under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act and the method of determining whether information falls under such information

[3] In a case where Gap et al. filed a request with the head of the competent Gu for disclosure of information concerning the disposition of basic property Eul, but the relevant information constitutes Article 9(1)4 and 7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, etc., the case affirming the judgment below holding that the ground under Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, which added the ground for disposition to the head of the competent Gu, is not identical to the original disposition ground for disposition, and thus it is not allowed to add the information on the ground that Article 9(1)4, 5, and 7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act are identical to the basic facts of Article 9(1)7 of the same Act

[1] Article 9(1)4 of the Act on the Information of Public Institutions / [2] Article 9(1)7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act / [3] Article 9(1)4, 5, and 7 of the Act on the Information of Public Institutions

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19021 decided Nov. 24, 201 (Gong2012Sang, 49)

Plaintiff

The head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Law Firm Boo, Attorneys Lee Hun-hwan et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu10688 decided October 14, 2010

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) provides for “information related to a trial in progress” as information subject to non-disclosure in order to ensure the people’s right to know and secure citizens’ participation in state affairs and transparency in state affairs by prescribing necessary matters concerning the citizens’ request for disclosure of information held and managed by a public institution and the duty to disclose information of a public institution. However, in order to prevent damage to national judicial action, such as the independence and fairness of trial, in order to ensure the public’s right to know and to ensure transparency in state affairs.

Considering the legislative purpose of the Information Disclosure Act, the principle of information disclosure, and the form and purport of the above provision of information subject to non-disclosure, etc., in order to refuse the information disclosure on the grounds that the public institution other than the court falls under “information related to the ongoing trial” as stipulated by the above provision, it is not necessarily necessary to be included in the records of the trial in which the information is in progress. However, all the information related to the trial is not corresponding thereto, but is limited to the information that is likely to specifically affect the deliberation or the result of the trial in progress (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19021, Nov. 24, 2

In light of the above legal principles, the court below determined that each of the information of this case does not constitute "information related to the ongoing trial," which is information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 4 of the Information Disclosure Act, is just and there was no error by misapprehending the legal principles on information subject to non-disclosure

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

"Management and trade secrets of a corporation, etc." under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Information Disclosure Act refers to all information about business activities that are advantageous to the disclosure of others, or all confidential information about business activities. Whether to disclose such information is likely to seriously undermine the legitimate interests of the corporation, etc. It shall be determined strictly in light of the legislative intent of the Information Disclosure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19021, Nov. 24, 201).

citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, the lower court determined that the disclosure of the information listed in paragraphs (2), (3), and (5) of the holding among the information of this case may be deemed as business secrets; however, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the disclosure of information held and managed by the public institution is in principle; (b) the disclosure of information constitutes an exception to disclosure; and (c) there is a need to strictly interpret as an exception to disclosure; and (b) there is no evidence to see that there is no evidence to see that the disclosure of information concerning the disposal of the basic property already sold by the Doudio as an incorporated foundation and completed the amendment of the articles of incorporation; and (c) the disclosure of information after deducting only the account number of the financial institution traded by the Doudio as an incorporated foundation from the information listed in paragraphs (2), (3), and (

The judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to information subject to non-disclosure under the above provisions.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

A. In an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, the agency may add or change other grounds only to the extent that the grounds for the original disposition are recognized to be identical to the basic factual relations. The existence of the basic factual relations here is determined based on whether the basic social factual relations are identical in a basic point of view with the specific facts prior to the legal evaluation of the grounds for disposition. Thus, if the grounds for the disposition are not identical, the additional or modified grounds did not stipulate the grounds for the disposition at the time of the original disposition, and even if the parties have been aware of the fact, it cannot be deemed that the original grounds for the disposition are identical (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du12629, Jan. 13, 2006, etc.).

B. Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act prescribes information related to a trial in progress, as information related to audit, supervision, inspection, test, regulation, tendering contract, technology development, personnel management, decision-making process, or internal review process, etc., which, if disclosed, has considerable grounds to believe that a fair performance of duties or substantial impediment to research and development is caused to the disclosure, and subparagraph 7 of the same Article stipulates information pertaining to the management and trade secrets of corporations, organizations, or individuals, which, if disclosed, is likely to seriously harm legitimate interests of corporations, etc., as information subject to non-disclosure. In addition, the legislative intent of Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act is to guarantee the fairness and independence of a trial in progress, to ensure the continuity of research and development, and the legislative intent of subparagraph 5 of the same Article is to protect legitimate interests by preventing the divulgence of secrets of business activities of corporations, etc.

In light of the above legal principles, the legislative purport of Article 9(1)4, 5, and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act is not only different, but also the content, scope, and requirements of Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act added as the grounds for disposition cannot be said to be the same as the grounds for the Defendant’s assertion under Article 9(1)4 and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act, which are the original grounds for disposition, and it is not based on the facts existing at the time of the original disposition, but rather on the basis of the facts existing at the time of the original disposition.

C. In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the grounds alleged by the defendant under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Information Disclosure Act, which was added to the grounds for disposition, cannot be the same as the grounds alleged under Article 9 (1) 4 and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act, which are the original grounds for disposition, and therefore the addition of the above grounds for disposition is not allowed. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Selections: Omitted

Justices Park Il-young (Presiding Justice)