(영문) 대법원 2015.2.12.선고 2014두36365 판결

1. The Constitution guarantees the freedom of expression as a fundamental right to all citizens. To freely form and express opinions on the premise of the freedom of expression, individuals must have access to information and be able to know it. Thus, the right to know should be recognized. The content of the right to know includes the right to access information held and managed by public institutions.

The Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions (hereinafter referred to as the "Information Disclosure Act") enacted for the purpose of guaranteeing citizens' right to know and securing citizens' participation in state affairs and transparency in the management of state affairs provides that Article 3 of the Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions (hereinafter referred to as the "Information Disclosure Act") declares the principle of disclosure of information that information held and managed by public institutions should be actively disclosed as prescribed by this Act, Article 5(1) of the Act provides that all citizens shall have the right to request disclosure of information, and Article 6 of the Act provides that public institutions shall enforce this Act, revise related Acts and subordinate statutes, and improve

Considering the legislative purpose, regulatory content, etc. of the Information Disclosure Act, the citizen's claim for information disclosure should be widely permitted unless it falls under the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act.

On the other hand, since all rights shall be exercised in good faith and sincerity, such rights shall not be exercised if they are abused against the good faith principle. This also applies to requests for disclosure of information. Therefore, in a case where: (a) in fact, the right to request disclosure of information may not be readily concluded solely on the ground that the claimant’s purpose or reason for the request for disclosure of information is unclear, where it is evident that the relevant information constitutes abuse of the right, such as obtaining unjust benefits which cannot be accepted by social norms by using the information disclosure system without any intent to acquire or utilize the relevant information; or (b) filing a request for disclosure for the purpose of inducing public officials in charge of the public institution or repeating such claims; or (c) where the Information Disclosure Act does not limit the importance of the right to know and the purpose and reason for the request

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

A. The plaintiff was sentenced to three years and six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act, and repeatedly filed a claim for various information disclosure with the chief prosecutor, branch chief, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Minister of Security and Public Administration, the head of a detention house, the chief of a police station, and the chief of a police station in several recent years, such as administrative litigation, civil litigation, judgment of the public prosecutor's office, notice of decision of disclosure of information that the public prosecutor's office decided to disclose during the recent several years, investigation records of consular or detention house employees who filed a complaint against the plaintiff's breach of his/her duties, work performance manuals of consular or detention house, and personnel measures against the pertinent consular or relevant employees.

B. In filing a claim for disclosure of information as above, the Plaintiff made several requests for disclosure by dividing the information corresponding to one case into several occasions without any reasonable ground. The Plaintiff did not receive the relevant information, but the Plaintiff failed to receive the information, and filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the request for disclosure of information throughout the country against the rejection disposition if such request is rejected. The Plaintiff appointed a specific attorney as a legal representative in the lawsuit for the disclosure of information including the instant case. At the counseling with the prison staff, the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that the Plaintiff would have distributed the attorney fees to the attorney upon winning the lawsuit for the disclosure of information and being paid the attorney fees by winning the lawsuit for confirmation of litigation costs. In addition, the Plaintiff appeared at a nationwide court more than 90 times under the pretext of attending the pleadings in the lawsuit for the disclosure of information, and the Plaintiff did not pay the cost of attendance in the court in several million won.

D. The Plaintiff stated to the effect that, in consultation with the employees of prison, an information disclosure claim, which was proceeding with the Plaintiff, was not for remedy of rights, and was not for remedy of rights, and that, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s time and the administrative power of the State was vain, it would be suspended.

3. According to these facts, the Plaintiff did not request the Defendant to disclose the information for access to the information of this case, but may be deemed to have filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the rejection disposition if the claim is rejected and won in the lawsuit, and there is considerable room to view that the Plaintiff filed a claim to disclose the information for the purpose of obtaining a larger amount of the cost of litigation than the cost of litigation actually paid in the lawsuit, or evading forced labor by attending the court on the date of pleading during the number of days of pleading. In accordance with the above legal principles, such a claim to disclose the information may not be deemed as an abuse of the right.

Nevertheless, notwithstanding the above circumstances, the court below held that the disposition of this case which rejected the request for information disclosure was unlawful since the plaintiff's request for information disclosure of this case does not constitute abuse of rights for the reasons stated in its holding without examining whether there is a special reason for the plaintiff to request information disclosure, etc.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.