logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.11.01 2017구합22116
정보공개거부처분취소
Text

1. On June 29, 2017, the Defendant started the litigation of the Daegu District Court 2016Guhap2287 against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 1, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for information disclosure of the Daegu District Court Case 2016Guhap22287 (hereinafter “instant dispute”), 2016Guhap21475 of the same court, 2016Guhap23136 of the same court, 2016Guhap23051 of the same court, 2016Guhap23051 of the same court, 2016Guhap22980 of the same court, and each attorney’s delegation contract and each attorney’s fee payment decision (e.g., electronic document, etc.).

B. On June 29, 2017, the Defendant, among the information subject to the above request for information disclosure, disclosed to the Plaintiff the disbursement resolution, the disbursement resolution, the successful fee disbursement resolution, etc. of the above five cases, and it is recognized that if disclosed to the public as a matter of business management and trade secrets of corporations, organizations, or individuals pursuant to Article 9(1)7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”), there is a risk of considerable harm to the legitimate interests of the corporations, etc. on the grounds that the disclosure would be likely to cause considerable harm to the legitimate interests of the corporations, etc.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 3, Eul's evidence 1 and 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff filed a claim for information disclosure of the attorney’s fee payment resolution of the instant case, and the Defendant rendered a single disposition on the same day, thereby not disclosing the retainer and the disbursement resolution of the attorney’s fee payment resolution. However, in the instant case, the Plaintiff’s illegality of the disposition rejecting the information disclosure of the instant information, and the Daegu District Court.

arrow