[1] Whether: (a) a public institution obligated to disclose information under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Official Information Disclosure Act’s use of a private university is contrary to the ideology of guaranteeing autonomy of universities under the Constitution or goes beyond the scope of delegation by the mother’s law (negative)

[2] In a case where the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Disclosure of Information by Education-Related Institutions is applied to schools, whether the former Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions is not applicable (negative)

[3] The meaning of "management and trade secrets of corporations, etc." under Article 9 (1) 7 of the former Information Disclosure Act and the standard for determining whether to disclose such information

[1] Article 2 subparag. 3 of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (Amended by Act No. 10012, Feb. 4, 2010); Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Official Information Disclosure Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23226, Oct. 17, 201) / [2] Articles 2 and 4 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Disclosure of Information by Education-Related Institutions (Amended by Act No. 9643, May 8, 2009) / [3] Article 9(1)7 of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (Amended by Act No. 10012, Feb. 4, 2010)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Du2783 Decided August 24, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1621) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19021 Decided November 24, 201 (Gong2012Sang, 49)

Partic solidarity and one other (Attorney Cho Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na14488 delivered on August 2, 201

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu2908 decided January 19, 2011

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 2 subparag. 3 of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 10012, Feb. 4, 2010; hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) provides that “public agencies” refer to state agencies, local governments, government-invested institutions under Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Management of Government-Invested Institutions, government-invested institutions under Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Information Disclosure Act, and other institutions prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Information Disclosure Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2326, Oct. 17, 201) includes any school established under the Elementary, Secondary and Secondary Education Act, Higher Education Act, and other Acts, and private universities became public institutions obligated to disclose information.

The determination of an institution obligated to disclose information is within the scope of the legislative formation authority of the legislators. Accordingly, Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Information Disclosure Act does not limit the “public institution” to the State institution, but includes local governments, government-invested institutions, and other institutions performing important roles or functions in the overall interests of the community. In light of the purpose of information disclosure, the public nature of education, homogeneity of public and private schools, and the financial support and subsidies from the State for private universities, etc., even though considering that the State’s subsidization for private universities is limited, temporary, temporary, and local government support for private universities is limited, it cannot be said that the citing private universities as one of the public institutions obligated to disclose information pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Information Disclosure Act is contrary to the principle of guaranteeing the autonomy of universities prescribed by the Constitution or goes beyond the scope of delegation of the Information Disclosure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du2783, Aug. 24, 2006).

Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Information Disclosure Act is unconstitutional or unlawful by essentially infringing on the autonomy of the university owned by a private university or by restricting fundamental rights beyond the limit of delegated legislation without any legal basis.

2. Article 2 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Disclosure of Information by Education-Related Institutions (amended by Act No. 9643 of May 8, 2009; hereinafter “Educational Institution Information Disclosure Act”) provides that “The purpose of this Act is to prescribe special cases concerning the Information Disclosure Act in order to guarantee citizens’ right to know and promote academic and policy research by prescribing the duty of disclosure of information held and managed by education-related institutions and fundamental matters necessary for disclosure, and to promote participation in school education and enhance the efficiency and transparency of educational administration.” Article 2 of the same Act provides that “information subject to the regulation of the Act is “documents (including electronic documents), drawings, photographs, films, tapes, slides, and other similar media prepared or acquired and managed by education-related institutions in relation to school education,” and subparagraph 4 defines “education-related institutions” as “school, educational administrative agencies, and educational research institutions” and subparagraph 5 provides for “school information” as “information disclosure under Article 2 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act or information disclosure under Article 2 of the Information Disclosure Act.”

As above, since the Act on the Disclosure of Information on Educational Institutions specifically regulates the disclosure of information that an education-related institution prepares or acquires and manages in relation to school education among information that is prepared or acquired by a public institution in the course of performing its duties, it shall not be said that the Act on the Disclosure of Information on Educational Institutions applies to schools.

Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Information Disclosure Act was implicitly repealed by the enforcement of the Information Disclosure Act on schools.

3. “Management and trade secrets of a corporation, etc.” under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act refer to “all information on business activities that are advantageous to the disclosure of others,” or “all confidential information on business activities,” and whether to disclose the information shall be determined depending on whether there is a legitimate interest to refuse disclosure. Whether there is a legitimate interest to the public should be determined strictly in light of the legislative intent of the Information Disclosure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19021, Nov. 24, 2011).

citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) the information on the minutes of the Committee on the Management of Funds for Schools from 2003 to November 3, 2008 (hereinafter “information on the minutes of the Fund Operation”) and the documents stating the basis for calculating the rate of increase in the annual school enrollment fees for each year from 2003 to 2008 (hereinafter “information on the rate of increase in the enrollment fees for each year”) fall under the “confidential on the management and business of corporations, etc.”; (b) the Constitution provides the legal principle of education; (c) the private university also takes charge of the territory of the national education system; (d) the private school’s finance and accounting should be operated in a sound manner; (c) the private school’s information on the minutes of the Fund Operation shall not be deemed to be contrary to its purpose or duty as a public institution; and (d) the purpose and purpose of the Act on the Promotion of the Registration Fees for Schools, which is the operation of the Fund Operation and Operation of Funds for each of the preceding years, and its purpose of the Contribution.

The judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)