The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Progress;

A. On May 26, 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission to disclose the following documents approved.

B. On June 5, 2014, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission rendered a non-disclosure decision on the ground that it falls under Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act.

(W) A draftr C and a approving authority D).

The plaintiff appealed against this and filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of the non-disclosure decision.

The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission reviewed relevant statutes and decided to disclose information on August 4, 2014.

2. The grounds for the plaintiff's claim are as shown in the annexed sheet.

3. Determination

A. Even if any administrative disposition is based on a wrong statutory interpretation, it cannot be readily determined that the administrative disposition was due to the intention or negligence of the public official immediately and constitutes a tort, and the administrative disposition is deemed to have lost objective legitimacy by violating objective duty of care, and it satisfies the requirements for State liability under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da205864, Jun. 23, 2016). In this case, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission rendered a non-disclosure decision on the ground that the request for disclosure of information under paragraph (1) falls under Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act. It is difficult to readily conclude that public officials who participated in the decision have lost objective legitimacy by violating the duty of objective care.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s public officials belonging to the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission made a non-disclosure decision pursuant to Article 29 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Appeals Act, and Article 41 of the Administrative Appeals Act delegated by Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree violates Article 75 of the Constitution. Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Appeals Act is null

As seen in this paragraph, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Act Article 9.