In a case where Gap rejected the request of the head of the Eul branch office of the District Public Prosecutor's Office to disclose the judgment of civil lawsuit filed by the third party against the head of the Eul branch office, and the head of the Eul branch office rejected the disclosure of information, the case holding that although the name of the plaintiff's husband of the above third party falls under the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, it is unlawful to refuse the disclosure of information to the rest

In a case where Gap filed a request with the head of the Eul branch office of the district public prosecutor's office to disclose the judgment of the third party's civil lawsuit against the head of the Eul branch office, and the head of the Eul branch office rejected the disclosure of information on the grounds that the above information includes not only the third party's personal information but also the information that could infringe on the privacy or freedom of personal life, the court held that it is unlawful to refuse the disclosure of information on the rest of the part other than the information subject to non-disclosure, on the ground that the name, etc. of the plaintiff's husband of the third party's case among the above information could infringe on the privacy or freedom if disclosed, but it cannot be deemed necessary for the protection of personal rights, on the ground that the disclosure of information constitutes non-disclosure information under Article 9 (1) 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act.

Articles 9(1)6, 14, and 20(2) of the Official Information Disclosure Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Doz., Attorneys Kim Jong-san, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office

March 27, 2014

1. On November 21, 2013, the part of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information made by the Defendant against the Plaintiff (attached Form 2), excluding the information indicated in the list subject to non-disclosure, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The defendant's disposition rejecting information disclosure made against the plaintiff on November 21, 2013 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 12, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of information on “court rulings (excluding personal information) regarding civil and administrative litigations filed against the Defendant from January 1, 2010 to November 1, 2013.” However, as civil or administrative cases filed by the citizens in relation to the decision, etc. of the territory branch office of the Dong Office of the District Prosecutors’ Office from January 1, 2010 to November 1, 2013, the Cheongju District Court’s Young-dong Branch Branch 2012Kadan1435 (hereinafter “instant information”).

B. On November 21, 2013, the Defendant, as well as the third party’s personal information, included information that could infringe on the privacy or freedom of personal life, and thus, to disclose the third party’s decision, notified the Plaintiff of the impossibility of disclosure of the instant information (hereinafter “instant disposition”). As such, the Defendant deleted and notified the information that could infringe on the privacy or freedom of personal life, only when the third party consented after hearing the third party’s opinion.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Although the instant information does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”), the instant disposition that the Defendant refused to disclose was unlawful.

2) The defendant's assertion

Since the information of this case claimed by the Plaintiff includes the criminal records, criminal facts, process of forming property, marital relation, etc., disclosure of the personal information is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of an individual even if it is disclosed except personal information. The disclosure of the information of this case leads to the disclosure of the confidential information of the individual. As a result, there is a risk that the disclosure of the information of this case may interfere with the individual’s personal and mental life and may not lead a free life. While the information of this case is not necessary for protecting the rights of the Plaintiff, the information of this case is not necessary information for protecting the rights of the Plaintiff, but the benefits that the Plaintiff can obtain through the information of this case are not included. Thus, the disposition of this case by the Defendant is legitimate

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment 1] The entry is as follows.

C. Determination

1) Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act provides for the information held and managed by a public institution as one of the information subject to non-disclosure by providing for matters necessary for the citizen’s request for disclosure of information and the duty of disclosure of information held and managed by a public institution to guarantee citizens’ right to know and secure citizens’ participation in state affairs and transparency in state affairs. On the other hand, Article 9(1)6 of the Act provides for “information pertaining to individuals, such as names and resident registration numbers, etc. included in the relevant information, which, if disclosed, is likely to infringe on individual privacy or freedom if disclosed” as one of the information subject to non-disclosure, excluding “information that is prepared or acquired by a public institution and deemed necessary for the public interest or the protection of individual rights.” Here, whether disclosure constitutes “information that is deemed necessary for the protection of individual rights” should be determined individually on a case-by-case basis by comparing and comparing the interests of individual privacy

Meanwhile, Article 14 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that, in a case where the information requested for disclosure contains the information subject to non-disclosure and the information available for disclosure, the part falling under the non-disclosure subject to the scope not inconsistent with the purport of the request for disclosure and the part that can be disclosed should be separated and disclosed partially. This does not mean the case where the two parts can be physically separated, but it is possible to exclude or delete the technology, etc. related to the information subject to non-disclosure from the information in question in light of the method and procedure for disclosure of the information in question and to disclose the remaining information only, and the remaining part alone means the case where the information is worth disclosure (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12707, Dec. 9, 2

2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below conducted a non-disclosure inspection and examination of the information of this case pursuant to Article 20 (2) of the Information Disclosure Act. The information of this case includes the information listed in the list of the above third party's cases (attached Form 2), namely, the name, occupation, criminal records and criminal facts, types and sentences of sentence, the above plaintiff's status and marriage, the ownership of real estate and the real estate of the above plaintiff's husband, the ownership of real estate and the process of formation of property such as real estate purchase fund, etc. The above name of the plaintiff's husband, etc. may infringe on the privacy or freedom if disclosed, while disclosing the information of this case may not be deemed necessary for the protection of personal rights. Thus, the information of this case constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 6 of the Information Disclosure Act. However, disclosure of the remaining part of the information of this case, other than the above information of this case, is possible and worth the remainder of the information.

Therefore, it is unlawful for the Defendant to refuse to disclose the instant information on the ground that it constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act even to the remainder of the instant information except for the information indicated in the list subject to non-disclosure.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] Relevant Statutes: omitted

[Attachment 2] List of Confidential Information: omitted

Judges Lee Woo-man (Presiding Judge)