The issue of the first examination of the judicial examination and whether the correct answer constitutes the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (affirmative)

As long as the first examination is adopted by the problem bank method, it is practically impossible to re-explosive the same or similar issue as the examination question when disclosing the examination question and the question, and the number of the bank involved is limited to the examination which is subject to examination by the high level of study subjects. Accordingly, if several years pass, it is impossible to maintain it normally, and it will result in a lack of choice to give an excellent problem bank method in terms of fairness, objectivity and efficiency, and conversion into the direct examination method again. In addition, even in the case of the examination method, it is not only in the problem bank method, but also in the case of the direct examination method, it is expected that the examination method is open to the public, and it is not likely that there is a considerable possibility that the examination results in considerable side effects on the applicants or the selection members of the examination committee or the examination committee which is open to the public, and eventually, it is difficult to recognize that there is a considerable possibility that the examination method will not be more serious difficulty than the examination committee or the selection members of the examination committee or the examination committee.

Article 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act

Plaintiff

The Minister of Government Administration

1. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case

A. Dismissal of a claim for damages

B. The part of the claim for revocation of rejection of disclosure, such as examination issues, is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision that the defendant revoked the first examination issue and the first examination issue, which was implemented on January 16, 1999 and May 3, 1999 against the plaintiff, and that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5,005,000 won and the amount equivalent to 25% per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the date of full payment.

1. Details of the disposition;

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 3, the following facts may be recognized and there is no reflective evidence.

A. On January 8, 1999, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for disclosure of the first examination issue and response of the 41st judicial examination scheduled to enter into force on February 21, 199, and the test site that the Plaintiff received on the date of the examination, etc. immediately after the examination. However, on January 16, 199, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision on the ground that the materials relating to the examination related to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 7(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Act”) are not disclosed to the public.

B. On February 21, 1999, the plaintiff applied for the first examination of the 41st judicial examination that the defendant implemented on February 21, 199, and requested the defendant to disclose the above examination questions and answers. However, on May 3 of the same year, the defendant also made a non-disclosure decision (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition rejecting disclosure of this case") for the same reason.

2. Determination on the part of claim for damages

The Plaintiff sought monetary payment, such as consolation money and damages for delay, against the Defendant, who is the relevant administrative agency, on the premise that the refusal to disclose the instant case is unlawful. However, in a case where a lawsuit seeking damages on the ground of illegality of disposition falls under a civil lawsuit due to its nature and is filed as a lawsuit related to appeal litigation, it shall be filed against the State or local government to which the relevant administrative agency belongs, which is the subject of rights and obligations under the private law. Thus, the part concerning the claim for damages of the instant case filed by the

3. Determination on the part of the claim for revocation of refusal to disclose the instant case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of denial of disclosure of this case should be revoked, since there is no reason to deem that the above examination problem and response are open to the public and that the fair performance of the test is significantly hindered.

(b) Markets:

(1) Article 1 of the Act provides that the purpose of this Act is to guarantee citizens' right to know and secure citizens' participation in state affairs and transparency in state affairs by providing for necessary matters concerning the duty to disclose information held and managed by public institutions and the citizens' request for disclosure of information, and Article 3 provides that information held and managed by public institutions should be disclosed in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Article 6 provides that all citizens shall have the right to request disclosure of information. Accordingly, according to each of the above provisions, information held and managed by public institutions shall be disclosed in principle.

On the other hand, Article 7 of the Act provides for information subject to non-disclosure in consideration of regulating various conflicting interests. Of them, subparagraph 5 of the Act provides for information pertaining to audit, supervision, inspection, test, regulation, tendering contracts, technology development, personnel management, decision-making process, or internal review process, which, if disclosed, has considerable grounds to believe that a fair performance of duties or research and development has significantly impeded.

(2) As above, the law provides that the examination is subject to non-disclosure of the examination in our country, while taking charge of the public function of selecting state public officials or those who are qualified to engage in other public affairs, the functional aspect that the examination works as the only method or procedure for the compulsory resolution of conflicts of interest, such as passing and failure to pass the examination, and the complex process of preparing and grading it, is considered as a legislative measure that takes into account all the property value aspects that the examination should be protected as a kind of intellectual property right of the institution in charge of the examination. However, as a person applying for the examination, the examination is deemed to have a fair setting of the examination questions, and the examination results are naturally and accurately prepared, and the desire and necessity of the examination should be respected as much as possible by the government or public institution, so it is understood that the purpose or object of the examination and its attitude should be respected as possible, and in principle, there is considerable reason to recognize that the examination may seriously interfere with the fair performance or development of the work.

(3) Meanwhile, according to Gap evidence No. 1 and Gap evidence No. 2-1 through No. 9, the defendant, since 1981, has since the implementation of the multiple-choice test in the national public official employment examination system including the judicial examination, converting the examination committee into the method of preparing the problem bank instead of the existing one. While the examination committee is a method of directly preparing the problem under which the examination committee is receiving pension, the examination committee is a method of directly preparing the problem. On the other hand, the latter is a method of organizing and managing the problem bank, such as accumulating the questions given by the relevant fields such as professors, and dividing them by each field, etc., before the examination is implemented, the examination committee is selected separately before the examination is conducted, and the members are selected from among the problem bank and preparing the problem. The latter can ensure fairness and objectivity of the examination by preparing a variety of questions in the process of preparing the problem bank, which can be objectively and feasible, and the cost required to maintain security can also be reduced, and the method of preparing the problem can be corrected and re-established after the examination.

As above, as long as the first examination is adopted by the problem bank method, it is practically impossible to re-explosive the same or similar issue as the examination question when the first examination questions and answers are made public, and the number of the bank involved is limited in the judicial examination which is subject to examination by high level of study, so it is impossible to maintain it normally if several years pass, and eventually, it will result in relatively fair evaluation, objectivity and efficiency, giving up an excellent problem bank method and converting it into the direct examination method. In addition, even in the case of the first examination method, it is not only in the problem bank method, but also in the case of the second examination method, there is a high possibility that the examination questions may not be raised criticism that the examination questions will be made if the examination questions are prepared with the same or similar tendency as the examination problem, but it is more likely that the examination questions will not be made more than the examination committee's own examination or the examination committee's selection of applicants who have different opinions, and the examination committee's selection of the examination committee or the examination committee's selection of the examination committee's feasibility will be more likely than the examination committee's.

(4) The plaintiff has been disclosing all the past questions in fact, and there is no dispute as to whether there is any error in the examination questions or correct answers, etc., on the ground of the request for disclosure. However, the former problem is due to the failure to manage the examination for illegal leakage of the problem, and it is only necessary to supplement and improve the examination systematically, and thus, it is only necessary to properly disclose the examination (if the judicial examination, which is a high level and specialized examination, is open to the public, it is not possible to disclose all the examinations, examinations, examinations, promotion examinations, etc. of the remaining countries or public institutions) and it is more desirable to find the problems through research and effort within the process of managing the method of resolution, and there is no concern that the latter's attempt to raise the accuracy of the preparation through the ex post facto disclosure and verification procedure will cause fear to the society of our society.

(5) On the grounds above, the rejection disposition of the instant case is deemed lawful, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim on such rejection cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part concerning the claim for damages among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and thus, the part concerning the claim for revocation of the disposition rejecting disclosure is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jin-young (Presiding Judge)