logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.03.24 2014누60209
정보공개거부처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance 3.B.

In addition to the following cases, each part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of each corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Parts to be dried;

B. Before examining whether the information requested by the Plaintiff is subject to disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act, whether the Plaintiff’s claim for information disclosure of this case, which the Plaintiff sought, constitutes abuse of rights, shall be examined.

1) As long as a citizen’s claim for disclosure of information does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act, in principle, it should be widely permitted. However, in fact, in a case where it is evident that the information constitutes abuse of rights, such as where the information is intended to obtain unjust benefits which cannot be accepted by social norms by using the information disclosure system without any intent to acquire or utilize the pertinent information, or where it is evident that the information constitutes abuse of rights, such as where a public institution’s public official is involved, it should not be allowed to exercise the right to request disclosure. (ii) Each of the following facts may be acknowledged by adding the overall purport of pleadings to the evidence Nos. 2 through 33, Nos. 1 through 6, 21, and 22 (including the serial number) of evidence Nos. 2 through 33, 23, 21, and 222 (including the serial number).

(B) In multiple cases, the administrative agency rendered a decision to disclose or partially disclose the Plaintiff’s request for disclosure of information, but the Plaintiff.

arrow