beta
Cases
2011Guhap16285 Revocation of Disposition of Non-Disclosure of Information
Plaintiff
A
Defendant
The Minister of Environment
Conclusion of Pleadings
July 15, 2011
Imposition of Judgment
August 12, 2011
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim
The defendant's disposition of non-disclosure of information made against the plaintiff on May 13, 2011 shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in the evidence No. 2-1 to No. 4, or there is no dispute between the parties.
A. On May 3, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the disclosure of information on the benefits, bonuses, and all kinds of allowances (hereinafter “instant information”). On May 13, 201, the Defendant issued a non-disclosure decision (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not retain the instant information against the Plaintiff on May 13, 201.
2. Determination on this safety defense
In light of the fact that the information disclosure system is a system that discloses information held and managed by a public institution in its state, it shall prove that there is a considerable probability that the person seeking information disclosure will possess and manage the information that is sought for disclosure, and where a public institution does not hold and manage such information, there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the disposition rejecting information disclosure (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du12854, Jan. 28, 2005), barring any special circumstance, the plaintiff asserts that the information in this case is owned and managed by the defendant, but there is no evidence to prove that there is a considerable probability that the defendant retains and manages the information in this case, and therefore, there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the disposition in this case.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges
The presiding judge, Kim Hong-do
Judge Hanwon;
Judges Lee Sung-won