208Guhap45306 The revocation of the revocation of the decision to recognize the relevance of duties.

○ ○

The Examination Committee on Blind Trust of Stocks

March 13, 2009

April 17, 2009

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The decision of review that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on October 8, 2008 recognized that the shares listed in the separate sheet are relevant to the Plaintiff’s duties shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a member of the 18th National Assembly Planning and Arbitration Committee of the 18th National Assembly, the term of office of which began on May 30, 2008, and the Defendant is an administrative agency established within the Ministry of Public Administration and Security in order to examine and determine whether persons, etc. subject to disclosure of their rights (hereinafter “persons, etc.”) who are obligated to sell stocks or make a blind trust under Article 14-4 of the Public Service Ethics Act (amended by Act No. 9402, Feb. 3, 2009; hereinafter “Act”) and their interested parties are stocks

B. On September 1, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant for an examination as to the duty relationship of the instant shares in order to exempt the Defendant from the obligation to sell or trust the shares, whose total value exceeds KRW 30 million on the attached list owned by himself, his wife, and his children (hereinafter “instant shares”).

C. On October 8, 2008, the Defendant recognized the duty relationship of the instant stocks on the ground that “the Plaintiff may have access to and influence over the issuing company owned as a member of the planning and arbitration committee” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2-1, 2-1, and 2-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate or not. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff merely performs the comprehensive and timely parliamentary activities as a member of the planning and arbitration committee, but it is unlawful to determine that the defendant has a duty-related relationship with respect to the shares of this case, as it deviates from and abused discretion.

2) The instant disposition is unlawful in violation of Article 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act, since there is no specific presentation of reasons.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

(c) Markets:

1) The purport of the legal systemizing a sale of shares or a blank trust is to prevent trading of shares by using information that persons, etc. subject to disclosure of property under the law hold in the position or performance of their duties, or unfairly increasing property by affecting the share price, and to concentrate on performing their duties as a servant for the public (Article 1 of the Act).

Based on the judgment on business relationship, the Act stipulates "the possibility of direct and indirect access to and exercise of influence on the information," and the Enforcement Decree of the Act stipulates "the possibility of performing duties related to the formulation, enforcement, etc. of policies or statutes on related business types" (Article 14-5(8) of the Act and Article 27-8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act), and in that the freedom of disposal of property, such as the sale of stocks or blind trust, etc., subject to disclosure of information is restricted, the recognition of business relationship should be made carefully. However, in order to faithfully guarantee the function as a system to prevent conflict of interest, such as the disclosure of information, the requirement of proof of business relationship is not desirable.

Considering the purport of the aforementioned system and the side effects and seriousness thereof that may arise from conflict of interest, such as the disclosure disclosure, prior to such a request, if there is a possibility of a change in stock trading using information related to duties, or through exercising influence on duties, and if there is a reasonable ground in light of sound common sense and empirical rule, not merely remains in a conceptual and abstract degree, it is possible to recognize the relevance of duties. In such judgment, the content, level and scope of the information that the disclosure disclosure disclosure, etc. is connected to the duties, and the scope of authority, and the items and value of stocks held by the person subject to disclosure, etc. shall be comprehensively considered.

B) In light of the above legal principles, as a member of the National Assembly Planning and Arbitration Committee, the Plaintiff’s duty is to examine bills, petitions, etc. including legislative bills on matters over which the Ministry of Strategy and Finance and the Bank of Korea have overall economic, financial, and financial affairs (Article 23(1) of the Government Organization Act, Articles 47 through 86 of the Bank of Korea Act, and Article 36 of the National Assembly Act). The Plaintiff has the authority to request the government, administrative agencies, etc. to submit reports or documents directly related to the deliberation of bills or the inspection or investigation of state administration (Article 128(1) of the National Assembly Act). The information that the Plaintiff has access to these duties is beyond the whole economy, and its scope is considerably wide, high, and high, and it is reasonable to receive high-quality information on non-public land.In addition, in light of these circumstances, the Plaintiff has a big and comprehensive scope of influence on the share price in relation to the performance of duties, including formulation of laws over the whole economy, deliberation of budget, etc.

Thus, although the issue and value of the shares of this case are diverse, they are related to the plaintiff's duties, and the same applies to the case where the plaintiff does not dispose of shares during the stock price drop, and the liability of the plaintiff is basically based on his own decision, and the purpose of the public interest to be achieved through the disposition of this case cannot be deemed to be less severe than that of the plaintiff, so the disposition of this case is legitimate disposition within the scope of discretion. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

2) Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that an administrative agency shall present the basis and reasons for the disposition to the parties in the event of rendering a disposition. The purpose of specifying the grounds for such disposition is to ensure that an administrative agency makes a careful investigation and determination to ensure the legitimate disposition and present the basis of its legitimacy. Thus, the purport is to inform the other party to the disposition of the grounds for appeal and to ensure the procedural right to protect the trust of the interested parties and to ensure the procedural right by limiting the scope of the deliberation in judicial review (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du8912, May 17, 2002).

B) In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the business relevance of the instant shares was due to the Plaintiff’s nature of the Plaintiff’s duties, as seen earlier, the instant disposition was sufficiently presented through the Plaintiff’s explanation of the Plaintiff’s duty. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3) Accordingly, the instant disposition is lawful, and there is no illegality as alleged by the Plaintiff.

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.

Judges Lee Dong-gu

Judge Lee Jin-soo

The purpose of Article 1 (1) of the Public Service Ethics Act (amended by Act No. 9402 of Feb. 3, 2009) is to prevent unlawful increase in property of public officials and secure fairness in the performance of public duties, thereby establishing the ethics of public officials as servants, by prescribing the regulations on property acquisition, the disclosure of registered property, the explanation of process of property formation, and the blind trust of public officials and the restriction on employment of retired public officials.

Article 3 (Persons Liable for Registration) (1) Any public official who falls under any of the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as “persons liable for registration”) shall register property pursuant to the provisions of this Act:

1. The public service ethics committee in a state such as the President, the Prime Minister, the Members of the State Council, and the National Assembly members shall publish the registered matters concerning the property of a public official, his spouse, lineal ascendants or descendants, and other persons liable for registration falling under any of the following subparagraphs in the Official Gazette or the Official Gazette within one month after the expiration of the registration or report period:

1. Where the total value of stocks owned by all the President, the Prime Minister, members of the State Council, the members of the National Assembly, the president of the National Intelligence Service, and the vice head, etc. prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereinafter referred to as the "persons, etc. subject to disclosure of information under Article 10 (1) from among public officials belonging to the Ministry of Strategy and Finance and public officials belonging to the Financial Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "persons, etc.") exceeds the amount prescribed by the Presidential Decree within the scope of not less than 10 million won and not more than 50 million won (referring to the persons falling under Article 4 (1) 2 or 3, but excluding those who have refused to notify matters concerning property registration under Article 12 (4); hereinafter the same shall apply) and all of their interested persons exceeds the amount prescribed by the Presidential Decree within the scope of not more than 10 million won and not more than 50 million won as of the date on which the grounds for postponement under the provisions of Article 6-3 (1) or the date on which the grounds for postponement are extinguished, are made to the following acts:

1. Sale of the relevant stocks;

2. The conclusion of a contract on the trust or investment trust meeting the following requirements (hereinafter referred to as the "registered trust of stocks");

(b) Persons, etc. subject to disclosure or their interested persons shall not participate in the management, operation and disposal of the trust property. Persons, etc. subject to disclosure or their interested persons shall not request the provision of information on the management, operation and disposal of the trust property, and the entrusted institution shall not provide such information: Provided, That when concluding a trust contract, the entrusted institution may present the basic method of management of the trust property in advance within

(d) Where a cause falling under any subparagraph of Article 14-10 (2) occurs, a truster shall be able to terminate the trust contract; and where the trustee institution performs the trust business with the care of a good manager, it shall not be held liable for any damage incurred therefrom. The trustee institution shall be a trust business entity or a collective investment business entity under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act that performs the trust business: Provided, That the persons, etc. subject to disclosure of property or its interested persons shall be excluded herefrom:

(1) The Examination Committee on Blind Trust of Stocks (hereinafter referred to as the "Examination Committee on Blind Trust of Stocks") shall be established in the Ministry of Public Administration and Security in order to examine and decide on whether persons, etc. subject to disclosure of property and their interested persons are related to their duties.

(6) Where persons, etc. subject to disclosure of property and their interested persons intend to escape from the obligations of sale of stocks or blind trust of stocks under Article 14-4 (1) on the grounds that the stocks held by them are not related to their duties, they shall make a request to the Examination Committee on Blind Trust of Stocks for an examination on whether they have relation to their duties within one month from the date (referring to the date on which they become persons, etc. subject to disclosure of property and their interested persons, or the date on which the gross value of stocks exceeds the amount prescribed by the Presidential Decree within the scope of not less than 10 million and not more than 50 million won as of the date on which they have become the persons, etc. subject to disclosure of property or the date on

(8) The relationship relationship to stocks shall be determined on the basis of the possibility of access to, and exercise of influence over, the information directly or indirectly on the stocks.

(11) Matters necessary for the examination procedures and operation of the Examination Committee on Blind Trust shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

[The amount prescribed by the Presidential Decree within the scope of not less than 10 million won and not more than 50 million won" in Articles 27-4, 27-4 (Minimum Value of Stocks subject to Blind Trust), the main sentence of Article 14-4 (1), 14-5 (6), and Article 7493 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Service Ethics Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21289, Feb. 3, 2009) means 30 million won.

(1) In judging the relationship of duty pursuant to the provisions of Article 14-5 (8) of the Act, a person, etc. subject to disclosure of duty pursuant to the provisions of Article 14-4 (1) of the Act shall take into account whether the person, etc. subject to disclosure of duty is engaged in the duties falling under any of the following subparagraphs or has direct and supervise such duties:

1. Business relating to the formulation, implementation, etc. of policies or Acts and subordinate statutes on related business types; 3. Business relating to authorization, permission, licenses, patents, etc.; 5. Business relating to the legal guidance and supervision; 6. Business relating to the formulation, deliberation and execution of budgets or the contract for construction works and goods