[1] Whether a “national” who has a right to information disclosure includes a corporation, non-corporate group, or foundation (affirmative), and whether a disposition rejecting information disclosure constitutes an infringement of legal interests (affirmative)

[2] In a case where there are parts of the information requested to be disclosed, whether the disclosure of information can be restricted by means of delivery of a copy or output of the entire information requested to be disclosed (negative)

[3] Whether information on business promotion expenses and business promotion expenses for the operation of the local government's institution constitutes "information whose disclosure is deemed necessary for the public interest" under Article 9 (1) 6 (c) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (affirmative)

[4] Whether the information on the account number of a financial institution traded by a corporation, etc. constitutes "information concerning business secrets of a corporation, etc., which, if disclosed, could seriously harm the legitimate interests of the corporation, etc." under Article 9(1)7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (affirmative)

[1] Article 5(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act provides that “All citizens shall have the right to request the disclosure of information.” The term “public citizens” includes not only natural persons but also corporations, but also associations and foundations with no capacity to enjoy rights. On the other hand, since the right to request the disclosure of information is specific rights protected under the law, the right to request the disclosure of information against the public institution by the claimant itself constitutes infringement of legal interests

[2] In a case where the information requested to be disclosed constitutes the information subject to non-disclosure, the public agency that received the request may not disclose the relevant information subject to non-disclosure, but may not limit the disclosure of information by means of a copy or a delivery of output as to the entire information requested to be disclosed.

[3] Business promotion expenses and policy implementation expenses of local governments are all limited to public purposes and their disbursement nature is confidential. Accordingly, information on business promotion expenses and policy implementation expenses of local governments requested to be disclosed including basic data that can determine the legality and efficiency of the execution of business promotion expenses and policy implementation expenses, such as guaranteeing the citizens' right to know as provided by the Constitution and laws, securing the legality and efficiency of the execution of the business promotion expenses, and enhancing the citizens' interest in administration and the spirit of participation in the execution of the budget, thereby promoting the local autonomy system, while resolving the suspicions of the citizens that the budget is executed or wasted for private purposes, and enhancing the transparency and accountability of the administrative procedures, it is necessary to disclose them to the general public. Accordingly, information on business promotion expenses and policy implementation expenses of local governments constitutes "information that is deemed necessary for the public interest."

[4] Information on the account number of a financial institution traded by a corporation, etc. is likely to pose a threat to the business status of the corporation, etc. if it is disclosed in combination with the name of the corporation, etc. on matters concerning business secrets of the corporation, etc. Thus, such information constitutes information that is deemed to seriously undermine legitimate interests of the corporation, etc., if disclosed.

[1] Articles 5 and 9 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 5 and 9 of the Official Information Disclosure Act / [3] Articles 5 and 9 (1) 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act / [4] Articles 5 and 9 (1) 7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act

[1] [4] Supreme Court Decision 2002Du9391 Decided April 22, 2003 / [1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Du6425 Decided March 11, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 997) Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2918 Decided March 11, 2003

Plaintiff

Do Governor of Chungcheongnam-Nam (Law Firm Busan, Attorneys O Young-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

July 12, 2006

1. The defendant's refusal of disclosure of information by means of delivery of a copy of the information listed in Attached Table 1 with respect to the plaintiff on September 28, 2005, other than the rejection of disclosure of information listed in Attached Table 2, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's refusal to disclose information to the plaintiff on September 28, 2005 shall be revoked by means of delivery of a copy of the information listed in attached Form 1 as to the plaintiff.

1. Details of a disposition rejecting information disclosure;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 1 and Gap evidence 2 (including the paper number):

A. On September 5, 2005, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose information by means of a copy or an output delivery as to the information listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant information”).

B. On September 28, 2005, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for disclosure of information on the instant information through the Do website to the extent that it does not infringe upon an individual’s privacy, privacy infringement, business secrets, and interests, etc., and disclosed only the general execution details (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Defendant decided to disclose only the general execution details on the instant information, thereby refusing the Plaintiff’s request for disclosure of information by the method of delivery of copies or printed copies (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant asserts that the parties to the instant disposition are Chungcheongnam-do Party, not the plaintiff, and thus, the plaintiff has no standing to seek revocation of the instant disposition.

On the other hand, Article 5(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides that “All citizens shall have the right to request the disclosure of information,” which includes not only natural persons but also juristic persons, unincorporated associations and foundations. On the other hand, since the right to request the disclosure of information is legally protected and specific rights, the claimant’s filing a request for the disclosure of information with respect to public institutions and the refusal of such request constitutes infringement of legal interests (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du6425, Mar. 11, 2003, etc.). According to each of subparagraphs 1-1 and 2-2 of Article 5(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, “applicant” of the Information Disclosure Claim refers to the Plaintiff’s resident registration number, and “resident registration number” refers to the Plaintiff’s resident registration number and the “resident address” of the claimant. However, “the address” of the claimant is merely a party to the instant claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of the instant case.

B. In addition, the defendant disclosed a copy of the execution details of business promotion expenses of the defendant and vice governor in January through July 2005 in response to the plaintiff's request for the disclosure of information of this case, and in addition, in the case where the plaintiff requests the disclosure of information again, the information about that part is planned to be disclosed. The plaintiff's claim for the disclosure of information of this case can be said to have been achieved. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that there is no interest in filing a lawsuit

On September 28, 2005, the plaintiff requested the defendant to disclose the information of this case by means of a copy or an output delivery, but the defendant acknowledged the fact that he disclosed only the general execution details of the information of this case to the plaintiff on September 28, 2005. However, since it is apparent that it is not all the information of this case, the purpose of the plaintiff's request to disclose the information of this case cannot be deemed to have been achieved through the above disclosure. In addition, even if the plaintiff requested to disclose the information of this case by means of a copy or output delivery of the information of this case, if the plaintiff initially claimed to disclose the information of this case by the means of a copy or output delivery of the information of this case, it cannot be deemed that the purpose of the plaintiff's request

C. Therefore, the defendant's main defense is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

Since the Plaintiff filed a request for disclosure of information on the instant information with respect to the Defendant, the Defendant, a public agency that received the request for disclosure of information by means of delivery of copies or printed materials, shall disclose only the overall execution details concerning the instant information, although the Defendant, a public agency that received the request for disclosure of information, shall do so by means of delivery of copies. The instant information does not constitute “information deemed likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals,” but does not constitute “matters concerning the management and trade secrets of corporations, organizations or individuals,” and thus, the instant

(2) The defendant's argument

If the information of this case is disclosed in whole, personal information of participants in the event or recipients of money and valuables included in the information of this case may be disclosed, and personal privacy may be infringed, and such disclosure of confidential business information of corporations, organizations, or individuals may seriously undermine legitimate interests of corporations, etc., the disposition of this case is lawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

(c) Markets:

(1) In a case where there are parts of the information requested to be disclosed, the public agency that received the request for disclosure may not disclose the relevant information subject to non-disclosure, but may not be deemed to limit the disclosure of information by means of a copy or a delivery of output as to the entire information requested to be disclosed.

(2) Whether the information is subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Act

Article 9(1)6 of the Act provides that “personal information by name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information can be identified” as one of the information subject to non-disclosure, and Article 9(1)6 of the Act provides that “information prepared or acquired by a public institution and deemed necessary for the public interest or for the protection of rights of an individual” is excluded from “information that is deemed necessary for the public interest or for the protection of rights of an individual.” In this context, whether disclosure constitutes “information that is deemed necessary for the public interest” should be determined carefully according to specific matters by comparing and comparing the interests of an individual protected by non-disclosure such as the protection of privacy and the public interest such as securing transparency in state administration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

In light of the overall purport of the arguments as to this case's health team, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, it can be acknowledged that the operating expenses of the institution are included in the standard amount of the basic guidelines for the compilation of the local government's budget, and are executed according to the above guidelines. The operating expenses of the institution are composed of large unit projects, major investment projects, major events, etc. and are executed according to the basic guidelines for the compilation of the local government's budget, and are executed according to the above guidelines. According to the above facts, the operating expenses of the institution's operation and policy are limited to the public purpose and the disbursement nature is confidential. Accordingly, the information of this case including basic materials to determine the legality and efficiency of the execution of the operating expenses of the institution's operation and policy promotion, such as guaranteeing the citizens' right to know and securing the public interest by securing the legitimacy and efficiency of the budget execution, and it is necessary to disclose it to the public in terms of private transparency and transparency of the administrative procedure and to promote the public's participation in the administration.

However, among the evidence of expenditure held by the defendant, there are cases where information about individuals by which the defendant can identify specific persons based on the name, resident registration number, etc. of individuals who participated in various events held by the defendant, such as briefing sessions and holding events, and information about individuals by which the defendant can identify specific persons based on the name, resident registration number, etc. of individuals who participated in the events held by the defendant, such as the name, resident registration number, etc. of individuals who participated in corrective public relations relations relations, encouragement of people who are needy residents or victims, and other similar names, and information about individuals who are the final recipients of money and valuables paid under the above name, resident registration number, etc. Where such information about participants and recipients of money and valuables is disclosed, there is a concern that their privacy may be infringed if disclosed, and that the purpose of spending of each of the above promotion expenses is more likely to be impeded, such as smooth organization, promotion, encouragement, etc. due to such invasion of privacy, and that there is a need for the disbursement of each of the above promotion expenses which need to be made public without any conditions.

However, if a public official participates in an event in connection with his/her duties or receives money and valuables from among participants in the event and recipients of money and valuables, the attendance of the event or the receipt of money and valuables are returned to public affairs, and accordingly the public announcement of personal information is planned to certain extent, and the degree of strict and equitable demand for enforcement of money is higher than that of the general public. Thus, it is reasonable to disclose personal information except the resident registration number of the above public official as it falls under Article 9 (1) 6 (c) of the Act and it is reasonable to disclose such information (if a public official participates in an event without relation to his/her duties or receives money and valuables from a public official without relation to his/her duties, it is not desirable to disclose the information above even from the perspective of protecting the privacy of the public official, and it cannot be said that there is a benefit protected by the public disclosure of the above information, and thus, it does not constitute "information that is deemed necessary for the public interest."

(3) Confidential information under section 9(1)7 of the Act

Article 9(1)6 of the Act provides that personal information about a corporation or an organization is subject to non-disclosure only to the extent that it is recognizable by a specific person. However, Article 9(1)7 of the Act provides that personal information about a corporation or an organization, which manages the information and a place of business, shall be subject to non-disclosure only in cases where the disclosure of the information is deemed likely to seriously undermine the legitimate interests of the corporation, etc., and where a non-individual or an organization, other than an individual, receives money and valuables, such as encouragement money, or receives such money from the Defendants in business, or where an individual who manages the place of business, receives information about the trade name, organization name, business name, business place name, business registration number, etc. of the corporation, etc., or if disclosed, there is no evidence to acknowledge that such information is likely to seriously undermine the legitimate interests of the corporation, etc.

However, information on the account number of a financial institution traded by a corporation, etc. is likely to pose a threat to the business status of the corporation, etc. if it is disclosed in combination with the name of the corporation, etc., and such information constitutes information that is deemed to seriously harm legitimate interests of the corporation, etc. if disclosed (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du9391, Apr. 22, 2003).

(4) Ultimately, the part of the instant information that ought to be disclosed to the public is the information listed in the separate sheet No. 2. Thus, the disposition rejecting disclosure of the remaining part of the instant disposition, excluding the part regarding information listed in the separate sheet No. 2, is unlawful

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the remaining part of the disposition of this case, except for the part refusing to disclose the information in the separate sheet No. 2, which constitutes the information subject to non-disclosure, shall be revoked as unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The defendant shall bear the costs of lawsuit by applying Article 98 and the proviso of Article

Judges Shin Jae-sop (Presiding Judge)