logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.09.14 2017구합43
정보공개거부처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 27, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to the public.

B. On December 9, 2016, the Defendant rendered a partial decision to refuse disclosure of the information listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “instant non-disclosure information”) among the information requested by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. A written opinion of the Deliberation Committee on Employee’s Invention (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”) dated August 2, 2016, which was disclosed by the Defendant, contains an opinion on whether to refer to “B”’s work invention, but it is difficult to find out which member’s position and name are deleted.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant’s non-disclosure information of this case is subject to the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

(2) Article 9(1)6(d) of the Information Disclosure Act provides that “Any information subject to non-disclosure falling under any item of Article 9 is subject to non-disclosure,” but Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act does not provide any legal basis for the instant non-disclosure information, thereby violating Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act.”

3) The instant disposition violated Articles 3 and 8-2 of the Information Disclosure Act, and Articles 56 and 59 of the State Public Officials Act. 4) The instant deliberation committee was unlawful by participating illegally commissioned advisory members and unqualified persons not commissioned as employer members.

Since the deliberation committee of this case violated the Invention Promotion Act, it is against the Information Disclosure Act to refuse to disclose the name and belonging to the deliberation committee's opinion related to the deliberation of the committee.

(b) Attached Form 3 of the relevant statutes.

arrow