Information Subject to Non-Disclosure

Information, which is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of an individual under Article 9 (1) 6 of the Information Disclosure Act, shall constitute information subject to non-disclosure.

Information subject to Article 9 of the Official Information Disclosure Act;

2014Guhap2391 Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Information Disclosure

IsaA

BB Director of the Tax Office

April 28, 2015

May 26, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s refusal to disclose information against the Plaintiff on October 22, 2014 is revoked (the date of disposition written in the Plaintiff’s complaint appears to be written in writing on October 16, 2014).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a report on capital gains tax on the land located in ○○○○○○○○○○○-gun, where the Plaintiff owned, and applied reduction or exemption for self-farmland for at least eight years. There was a dispute between investigators and telephone conversations with △△△△△△△, and there was a dispute between △△△△△ and △△△△△△ on the BB tax, but no sufficient explanation was given at the time, and △△△△△ and △△△△△△’s investigation team at the same time responded to the Plaintiff’s question. Even though the Plaintiff asked a public official in charge of △△△△△△△△△△△, the Plaintiff asked a public official in charge of △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△.

B. Accordingly, on October 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant for disclosure of the details of receipt of verbal civil petition filed by the Plaintiff after visiting the Defendant and the details and results of the measures taken against the request for disciplinary action against relevant public officials (hereinafter referred to as “information of this case”). On October 22, 2014, the Defendant made public disclosure to the Plaintiff on October 22, 2014, and ① the details of receipt of the former civil petition was inspected at the time of receipt by the Plaintiff ( October 16, 2014), and ② the results of handling the request for disciplinary action against the relevant public official, the public official’s service information constitutes information that may infringe on private life and constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Information Disclosure Act”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection against the Defendant on October 27, 2014, but was dismissed on November 1, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant information does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure as prescribed by Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act, which is necessary for protecting the Plaintiff’s rights. Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant refused to disclose the instant information is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As one of the information subject to non-disclosure, Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "information pertaining to an individual, such as name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information, which, if disclosed, could infringe on the privacy or the freedom of privacy." Article 9(1)6 of the same Act provides that "information prepared or acquired by a public institution and deemed necessary for the public interest or for the relief of rights of individuals shall be excluded." Here, whether disclosure constitutes "information deemed necessary for the public interest or for the relief of rights of individuals" should be determined individually on a case-by-case basis by comparing and comparing public interests, such as the interests of individuals protected by non-disclosure and the protection of privacy, the guarantee of people's right to know, the participation of citizens in state affairs, and the transparency of state administration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8302

2) In light of the legal principles, the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure, even if it is excluded from the address and resident registration number of the pertinent public official, since it affects the character and social evaluation of the pertinent public official, and thereby affects the overall area, such as the social life and business performance of the pertinent public official, and thus, constitutes information that is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of private life of the relevant public official under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act.

In addition, considering the following circumstances, which can be seen in full view of the purport of the entire argument, i.e., (i) the reason for the Plaintiff’s request for disciplinary action against the pertinent public official was handled in a friendly and clear manner, the pertinent public official cannot be readily concluded to have committed unlawful and unfair acts to the extent that he/she should bear the infringement of his/her privacy due to disclosure of the information of this case. Thus, it is difficult to deem the information of this case as an information necessary to be disclosed in the public interest perspective of guaranteeing the right to know and enhancing the transparency and accountability of administration, and (ii) under Article 7 of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials, the head of the agency to which the public official belongs or the head of the superior agency to which the public official belongs requires disciplinary resolution, etc. to the competent disciplinary committee, and the disclosure of the information of this case does not have the legal right to request disciplinary action against the public official, and in light of various circumstances such as the background of this case, it cannot be deemed as an information subject to non-disclosure.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition based on the ground that the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.