(영문) 전주지방법원 2010.4.6.선고 2009구합1881 판결

On May 21, 2009, the defendant's disposition of ordering the disclosure of information on the name and part of the signatory's name is revoked, among the "Written Application submitted to the defendant around December 2007 by the chairperson, etc. of the B apartment reconstruction promotion committee, etc. for the plaintiff on May 21, 2009."

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-6, and Gap evidence 5:

A. On May 12, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for information disclosure on the address, Dong, lake, and name other than the resident registration number, signed with the Defendant on December 26, 2007 by the chairman of the reconstruction promotion council, the president of the Residents' Self-Governing Council, the head of Tong, the resident, etc., who submitted to the Defendant the highest high-level district on the fiveth and lower floors and the fiveth and lower floors submitted to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant application”).

B. Accordingly, on May 21, 2009, the Defendant rejected the disclosure of information on the domicile and gender of the Signatorys among the instant written applications on the ground that the disclosure of the signature’s resident registration numbers and names constitutes matters related to individuals deemed likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals if disclosed pursuant to Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful since the information on the name of the person who does not want to reconstruct B apartment is information necessary for the remedy of rights and right to know of the owners who do not want to reconstruct B apartment, and it constitutes "information that is deemed necessary for the public interest or for the protection of an individual's rights" under Article 9 (1) 6 (c) of the Information Disclosure Act. The plaintiff filed a request with the defendant on February 3, 2006 for the disclosure of information on 135 persons who signed the consent letter of application for permission to engage in collective housing activities in relation to the disuse of use of B apartment complex underground water tank, and the defendant was subject to the decision on February 13, 2006 on the disclosure of information on the address and name other than resident registration number of the above 13

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

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 freedom of the individual, if disclosed, is excluded from "information that is deemed necessary for the public interest or for the protection of rights of the individual." Thus, whether disclosure in this context constitutes "information that is deemed necessary for the public interest or for the protection of rights of the individual," should be determined individually by comparing and comparing the interests of the individual, such as the protection of privacy, and the interests of the individual, which are protected by the disclosure, with the interests of the individual, such as the protection of rights of the individual, and the interests of the individual, which are protected by the disclosure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

However, in light of the fact that the information on the name of the Signatory who signed the application of this case requiring disclosure cannot be deemed as information necessary for any public interest or for the protection of the plaintiff's rights, even if it is disclosed, and even if there is a benefit gained by the plaintiff due to the disclosure of the above information, it is not desirable to disclose the above information from the perspective of protecting the individual's privacy. Rather, if such information is disclosed, it is likely that there is a dispute between the households that agree with the reconstruction and high-level mitigation of B apartment in addition to the infringement of the individual's privacy, it cannot be concluded that the interests protected by the disclosure rather than the interests protected by the non-disclosure of the personal information as above are more likely (On the other hand, according to the statement in the evidence evidence No. 2-3, according to the plaintiff's request, it cannot be seen as being inappropriate to acknowledge the fact that the defendant disclosed the application of this case to the public, as the case is not suitable for the defendant's name and address of the apartment complex in this case.

Therefore, among the written applications of this case, the part concerning the name of the Signatory constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act, and the "disclosure" under Article 9(1) proviso (c) of the same Act does not constitute "information deemed necessary for the public interest or for the protection of rights of individuals." Thus, the disposition of this case which rejected the disclosure of the above information is lawful, and the plaintiff's assertion

3. Conclusion

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