2015Guhap332 Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Information Disclosure

EA

Gwangju

Gwangju Metropolitan City Mayor

Litigation performers, lussium, flusium, re-purification

Attorney Lee Jong-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Jong-chul, Attorney Lee Ho-ok

July 16, 2015

August 20, 2015

1. The Defendant’s refusal to disclose information to the Plaintiff on January 30, 2015 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

On January 8, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the disclosure of information on the information listed in the attached list No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “information of this case”). On January 30, 2015, the Defendant rejected the disclosure of information on the following grounds (hereinafter referred to as the “instant refusal disposition”).

1. Grounds for decision: The grounds for decision under Article 9 (1) 2 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Information Disclosure Act"): It is not desirable that the disclosure of information pertaining to national security, national defense, unification, diplomatic relations, etc., which, if disclosed, could seriously undermine the national interest, if disclosed to the public in the course of five years prior to the point of five months prior to the point of five months prior to the opening of the opening of the information, which is likely to seriously undermine the national interest of the State and local governments, such as national interest, credit delivery, and status, which would be obtained from the World Cup. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, the entry of subparagraph 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. The parties' assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1)

Since the instant information does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act, the Defendant’s refusal disposition of this case on different premise is unlawful. 2) The Defendant’s assertion is the Defendant’s defense of safety.

The content of revenue from the budget of the Committee for the Attraction of Nativersth (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee for the Attraction of this case") consists of three items, such as funds, city contributions, and donations, and the "Si subsidy" that the Plaintiff seeks to disclose refers to the Si subsidy from among the above components. The Committee for the Attraction of this case does not separate the above three items and compile and execute the budget for each item of expenditure while executing the budget, and it is not allowed to separately disclose only the Si subsidy requested by the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Committee for the Attraction of this case does not need to prepare the detailed statement of expenditure, and there is no obligation for settlement because there is no obligation for settlement. Accordingly, the Defendant does not have a statement of settlement attached to the detailed evidence of the execution of the budget of the Committee for the Attraction of this case required by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, since the instant information for which the Plaintiff seeks disclosure is not owned and managed by the Defendant, an administrative agency, there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the instant refusal disposition.

B) Since the instant information falls under the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)2 of the Information Disclosure Act, the disclosure of the instant information is likely to adversely affect diplomatic relations and fall down with the State or Gwangju Metropolitan City, the instant information constitutes the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)2 of the Information Disclosure Act. (2) The instant information constitutes the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act, since it concerns the management and business secrets of Gwangju Metropolitan City. Thus, the instant information constitutes the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

3. Determination

A. Determination on this safety defense

1) Relevant legal principles

In light of the fact that the information disclosure system is a system that discloses information held and managed by a public institution as its condition, it is sufficient to prove that there is a considerable probability that the person seeking the information disclosure will hold and manage the information that is subject to disclosure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du9459, Jan. 13, 2006). In addition, the right to request the disclosure of information means only the disclosure of information held and managed by a public institution as its condition, and it cannot be viewed that the disclosure is made in the form that the public institution requires the restoration of new information created and destroyed based on the information held and managed by the public institution or the new processing and provision of information by the public institution as required by the person claiming the disclosure, on the premise that it does not interfere with the public institution’s performance of its duties. In this context, it can be deemed that the disclosure of information is the content of the right to request the disclosure of information that is held and managed in an electronic format, and that it does not interfere with the production and operation of the computer in question.

2) Facts of recognition

In addition to the facts without dispute and the purport of the whole arguments in the statements in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4 through 7, the following facts may be recognized, and no other counter-proof exists. (A) The progress of related administrative litigation and the conclusion of judgment

On January 27, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant for the disclosure of information on the details related to the details of the execution of activity support expenses (including the date, case details), all evidential documents (including copies of the disbursement resolution, copies of the receipt of evidentiary documents, etc.) among the subsidies for non-disclosure related to the promotion of the 2013 Summer World Games, and the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision on December 14, 201 on the ground that the said information falls under diplomatic relations, etc. and falls under the non-disclosure information under Article 9(1)2 and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as "previous refusal disposition").

On December 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the previous rejection disposition against the Defendant under this Court 2012Guhap669, and this Court rendered a decision to revoke the previous rejection disposition on the grounds that the above information does not fall under Article 9(1)2 and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act. The Defendant’s appeal and appeal against the above judgment were all dismissed, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 20, 2012.

B) Report by the Korean Broadcasting System on the instant information

On November 21, 2014, based on the above information, the Defendant disclosed the details of the 2015 Summeriscisciscising activity expenses to the Korea Broadcasting System (KBS), and Gwangju KBS reported suspicions related to the Defendant’s attraction of the 2015 Summerisciscison.

3) Determination

In light of the above legal principles, the above facts were revealed in addition to the overall purport of the pleadings. ① The defendant did not take the instant refusal disposition on the ground that the information of this case was non-disclosure information under the Information Disclosure Act, ② the defendant did not take the instant refusal disposition on the ground that it did not have the information of this case; ② the defendant issued the previous refusal disposition on the ground that it did not have the information of this case on the information of this case, ② the defendant did not have the previous refusal disposition on the ground that it did not have the information of this case, ③ the defendant did not have the argument that it did not own such information in the course of seeking the revocation of administrative litigation; ③ the defendant did not disclose the details of the attracting activity expenses of the 2015 hybrid, which are similar information of this case, to the information of this case, to the Korean Broadcasting System, and ④ the defendant did not own the information of this case on April 24, 2015 [2.3] that it did not have the result of the defendant's submission of the information of this case to the Gwangju Metropolitan City Council for the execution period of its commitments.

B. Judgment on the merits

1) Whether the instant information constitutes Article 9(1)2 of the Information Disclosure Act

Article 9 (1) 2 of the Information Disclosure Act provides for information related to national security, national defense, unification, diplomatic relations, etc. which is deemed likely to seriously undermine the national interest if disclosed.

However, considering the following circumstances recognized in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant information does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure.

A) The instant information consists of the details of the instant subsidy implementation cost (the date, budget item, execution purpose, expenditure amount) and documentary evidence thereof (such as disbursement resolution, withdrawal certificate, receipt, etc.). It is difficult to view it as “matters concerning external school relations, etc. within a strict sense, not in the process of exchange and negotiation among countries, but in the process of exchange and negotiation between countries, as information on the details of the budget execution of Gwangju Metropolitan City, which is a local government.”

B) There is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement between Gwangju Metropolitan City and the International University Sports Association (FISU) or other countries to disclose information on subsidies for inducement activities.

C) The Defendant asserts that the disclosure of the instant information would adversely affect diplomatic relations, and that there is a risk that the credit transfer to the State or Gwangju Metropolitan City might fall, and that the subsequent activities may have an adverse impact on attracting international events due to exposure to the attracting strategies and attracting activities. However, there is no evidence to support the Defendant’s aforementioned claims in detail.

If the disclosure refusal of the information of this case is allowed on the ground that the illegal act of attracting people is revealed, such misconduct has been committed, and the judicial branch silents such misconduct, thereby resulting in a risk of decline in national confidence. Therefore, the circumstances such as the defendant's assertion that the information of this case is disclosed to the public are likely to seriously undermine national interest, such as diplomatic relations, and this is not clearly concluded to the extent that the disclosure of the information of this case is likely to cause serious harm to the nation's interest, such as diplomatic relations, and the transparency of the citizen's right to know and correction and the operation of correction

2) Whether the instant information constitutes Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act

Article 9 (1) 7 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that information concerning the management and business secrets of corporations, organizations or individuals, which is deemed likely to seriously harm legitimate interests of corporations, etc., if disclosed, shall be subject to non-disclosure. The reason for non-disclosure is to protect the information held by public institutions, which is likely to harm competition of corporations, etc., the status of business operation, property rights, and other legitimate interests if disclosed.

However, the instant information is information on the details of the budget execution of Gwangju Metropolitan City, which is a local government. Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "public agencies" means state agencies, local governments, government-invested institutions under Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Management of Government-Invested Institutions, and other institutions prescribed by Presidential Decree." In addition, in addition to the purport that Article 9 subparag. 7 of the same Act is subject to non-disclosure, local governments falling under public institutions cannot be interpreted as corporations or organizations under the same provision. Moreover, there is no evidence suggesting that the instant information contains business secrets of other corporations, etc. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the instant information constitutes non-disclosure information under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Park Jong-chul et al.

Judge Park Jong-soo

Judicial branch support

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.