[1] Whether a public institution in receipt of a request for disclosure of information may refuse disclosure on the sole ground of a general reason without asserting and proving that the public institution constitutes the grounds for non-disclosure under several provisions of Article 7(1) of the former Information Disclosure Act (negative)

[2] In an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, where only a disposition agency addss or amends the relevant statute only to the extent that it does not change a timely specific fact at the time of the disposition, or specifically indicates the ground for the initial disposition, whether it constitutes an addition or alteration of a new ground for disposition (negative)

[1] Articles 1, 3, 6 (see current Article 5), and 7 (1) (see current Article 9 (1)) of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004) / [2] Articles 1 [general administrative disposition], 19, and 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [general administrative disposition]

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Du3426 delivered on September 21, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 2237), Supreme Court Decision 2001Du8827 delivered on December 11, 2003 (Gong2004Sang, 153) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1926 delivered on July 25, 1989 (Gong1989Ha, 1312), Supreme Court Decision 2004Du4482 Delivered on November 26, 2004 (Gong205Du3642 delivered on June 30, 2006)

Lee Ho-ho and 10 others (Law Firm Seomun, Attorney Park Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea National Housing Corporation (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Kim Byung-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu11717 decided Feb. 15, 2006

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

A. Articles 1, 3, and 6 of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004; hereinafter “the Act”) provide that all citizens shall disclose information held and managed by public institutions in principle in order to guarantee citizens’ right to know and secure citizens’ participation in state affairs and transparency in state administration. Thus, a public institution requested to disclose information held and managed by a citizen shall disclose such information unless it falls under the grounds for non-disclosure provided by each subparagraph of Article 7(1) of the Act. Even if refusal thereof, a public institution must specifically confirm and examine the contents of the information subject to disclosure and claim that certain parts conflict with any legal interests or fundamental rights and thus, constitutes a ground for non-disclosure provided by Article 7(1) Item (e) of the Act. It is not allowed to refuse disclosure on the ground of a general reason without reaching that point (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du3821, Aug. 21, 2012).

B. As acknowledged by the court below, if the defendant refused to disclose the administrative information of this case on the ground of an abstract and general reason that "in the absence of the social agreement on the specific verification method of apartment buyers and the adequate return of profit from housing projects, the disclosure of apartment buyers will only become the subject of debate without any end, and it is expected that the effect will be greater," without specifically stating which part of the administrative information of this case at the time of the disposition of this case falls under the grounds for non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) (e) of the former Information Disclosure Act, it cannot be deemed a legitimate disposition presenting the grounds for disposition, and thus, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding legal principles as to the information subject to non-disclosure

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. In an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, the agency may add or change other grounds which are the basis of the original disposition to the extent that the basic factual relations are identical, but the basic factual relations are identical to the same in a basic point of view, based on the specific facts prior to the legal evaluation of the grounds for disposition. In a case where the agency only adds or modifies statutes only the basis of the disposition, or explicitly expresses the grounds for the initial disposition, to the extent that it does not change the specific facts specified at the time of the disposition, it cannot be deemed that a new disposition is added or modified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu11926, Jul. 25, 1989; 96Du13286, Apr. 24, 1998; 2004Du482, Nov. 26, 2004).

B. Examining the above abstract and general grounds for disposition in comparison with the grounds for disposition in this case and the grounds for disposition asserted by the defendant during the lawsuit, it cannot be deemed that the social factual relations, which form the basis for the disposition in this case, are identical in a basic point of view, and it cannot be deemed that the grounds for disposition in this case are merely an addition of Acts and subordinate statutes on the basis of disposition or an indication of the initial grounds for disposition within the scope of identity as above. Thus, the court below is just in holding that the addition of the grounds for disposition in this case is not allowed, and there

3. Conclusion

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.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)