[1] The scope of "special corporation established under the Special Act" under Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Official Information Disclosure Act

[2] Whether a school juristic person constitutes a "special juristic person established under the Special Act" under Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Official Information Disclosure Act, which is a public institution obligated to disclose information (affirmative)

[1] The term "special corporation established by the Special Act" under Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Official Information Disclosure Act does not mean only a special corporation established by the individual law established for the establishment and regulation of the pertinent corporation, such as the Bank of Korea, Seoul National University Hospital, etc., but also includes a corporation established by the special law enacted for the purpose of uniform regulation of the role and function of the pertinent corporation which has a significant impact on community interest and for the establishment, operation and control of the pertinent corporation. In principle, only the corporation established by the pertinent law has the role and function under the pertinent law, and the private person or other form of organization performs its role and function. In addition, the pertinent law limits the purpose of establishment, business and activity of the corporation established by the pertinent law, and it does not mean that the pertinent corporation does not engage in any activity other than the purpose or business stipulated by the pertinent law.

[2] Under the Private School Act, which provides for the founder of a private school, the property and supervision thereof, qualifications for and status guarantee of a private school teacher, etc., the above Act does not stipulate any purpose other than the establishment and management of a private school, or any other activity other than profit-making business to appropriate for the management of a private school, and prohibits a private school other than the school juristic person (a private person or other form of organization from establishing and operating a private school in principle) from establishing and operating a private school. Although a school juristic person is not immediately established under the Private School Act, it only provides for the qualifications and procedures for establishment by presenting that there can exist a large number of private schools and a number of school juristic persons establishing and operating it in the nation, and even if there exist a large number of school juristic persons, it does not change the nature and status of each school juristic person. Thus, it constitutes a special juristic person established under Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Official Information Disclosure Act.

[1] Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Official Information Disclosure Act; Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Official Information Disclosure Act / [2] Articles 2 and 3 of the Private School Act; Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Official Information Disclosure Act; Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Official Information Disclosure Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Dong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

A school foundation and a private teaching institute

December 13, 2006

1. The defendant's refusal to disclose information described in the separate sheet against the plaintiff on June 28, 2006 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is the head of the Daejeon District Office of the Korean Teachers' Union, and the defendant is an educational foundation that establishes and operates the Dong name middle school which is a middle school under Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

B. On June 20, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the disclosure of information that requires the Defendant to deliver a copy and output of the information listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant information”). On June 28, 2006, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the disclosure on the ground that the school juristic person does not constitute an institution subject to the disclosure of information.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defense of this safety and the determination thereof

A. Main Safety Defenses

The defendant asserts that since the revenue and expenditure statement of school foundation accounts in the year 2002 through 2005 among the instant information is already disclosed on the website of the Daejeon Metropolitan Office of Education, the plaintiff's claim concerning the said information is unlawful as it has no legal interest in the lawsuit.

(b) Markets:

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant disclosed the revenue and expenditure statement of school juristic persons in the year 2002 through 2005 on the website of the Daejeon Metropolitan Office of Education.

Furthermore, according to Articles 3 and 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, Article 14(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and Article 2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, a person who requests the disclosure of information shall choose the method of disclosure to the information disclosure application, and in the case of documents, drawings, photographs, etc., the disclosure of information shall be made by means of perusal or delivery of copies. In full view of the above provisions, where a person who requests the disclosure of information selects the method of disclosure by means of delivery of copies, the public agency which received the request for disclosure shall disclose the information according to the method of disclosure chosen by the plaintiff. The fact that the plaintiff requested the disclosure of the above information by means of delivery of copies or printed copies is deemed not to be possible. Thus, even if the above defendant disclosed the revenue and expenditure statement of the school foundation in Daejeon Metropolitan City on the website of the Daejeon District Office of Education, the above disposition of information disclosure cannot be deemed to have been made otherwise unless it is delivered to the plaintiff by the delivery of copies or printed copies.

Therefore, the defendant's principal safety defense, which was based on the premise that the defendant disclosed the above information to the plaintiff, is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Whether a school foundation is a public institution obligated to disclose information

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) The plaintiff's assertion

Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Act and Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act stipulate “special corporations established by the Special Act” as one of the public institutions obligated to disclose information. Since the defendant is a school juristic person established by the Private School Act, which is a special law, it is a public institution.

(B) Defendant’s assertion

According to the Private School Act and other relevant provisions, school juristic persons and schools operated by school juristic persons are completely separate organizations in which the basis of establishment, organization, and members are completely separated, and the state’s monetary support is limited to schools. The school juristic persons operating the schools do not receive any monetary support. If the school juristic persons operating pure private property are subject to information disclosure, it would be an excessive infringement on private property rights, and the management and finance of private schools are under strict control by the competent authorities, and there is little room to interfere with school management, such as the use of national subsidies, etc. by the State. In light of the above, it is reasonable to interpret that only private schools which receive subsidies from the State constitute public institutions as prescribed by the Act,

(2) Relevant statutes

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

(3) Determination

Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Act provides that "public institutions" shall be the legislative formation authority of the legislator, and Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Act provides that "public institutions" shall be the State, local governments, government-invested institutions under Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Management of Government-Invested Institutions, and other institutions prescribed by the Presidential Decree. According to the delegation of the above provision, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that schools of various levels established under the Elementary, Secondary and Secondary Education Act, Higher Education Act and other Acts, local government-invested public corporations and local government public corporations under the Local Public Enterprises Act in subparagraph 1, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, government-invested institutions under the Framework Act on the Management of Local Public Enterprises in subparagraph 3, special corporations established under special Acts in subparagraph 4, and Article 42 (1) of the Social Welfare Services Act are listed in subparagraph 5.

In light of the legislative purpose or purpose of the Act, which was enacted to guarantee the people's right to know by disclosing information held and managed by public institutions and to secure the people's participation in the overall state including administration and the transparency of state administration, the "special corporation established by the Special Act" under Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act is not limited to special corporations established by the individual Acts established for the establishment and discipline of the juristic person, such as the Bank of Korea, Seoul National University University Hospital, etc., but it is not limited to the special corporations established by the Act, such as the Bank of Korea, Seoul National University University Hospital, etc., and it is determined that the legislative body has a great influence on the interests of the whole community due to the unique nature and public nature of the role or function of the nation, and furthermore, the establishment and operation of the juristic person in charge of the role and function of the juristic person, support and management of the juristic person by the State or local government to the juristic person, etc., and it is reasonable to limit the establishment of the juristic person and its purpose and function in principle, and to interpret it as well as its purpose and purpose.

(1) In the case of school juristic persons, the purpose of promoting the sound development of private schools by securing their independence and promoting their public nature is to establish the basis for their establishment under the Private School Act which provides for the founders of private schools, their property and supervision, qualifications for and guarantee of the status of private school teachers. ② Article 2(2) of the Private School Act provides that “school juristic persons” means juristic persons established under the Private School Act for the purpose of establishing and operating only the private school. Article 6(1) of the Private School Act provides that school juristic persons may engage in businesses for the purpose of seeking profits to operate the private school to the extent that their education does not interfere with the establishment and operation of the private school or their activities other than profit-making businesses, and Article 3(1) of the Private School Act provides that the school juristic persons established and operated by the private school juristic persons established under the Private School Act shall be prohibited from establishing and operating their respective facilities and properties for the purpose of establishing and operating the private school.

나아가, ㉠ 법 시행령 제2조 제1호 에서 학교법인에 의하여 설치된 사립학교를 정보공개대상기관으로 명시하고 있는바, 교육의 공공성 및 공·사립학교의 동질성에 비추어 볼 때 정보공개 대상기관으로서 국립학교와 공립학교를 설립·경영하는 국가 및 지방자치단체와 사립학교를 설립·경영하는 학교법인 간에 그 형평이 유지되어야 하므로 사립학교 설립 및 운영의 전제가 되는 학교법인 또한 사립학교와 마찬가지로 정보를 공개할 필요성이 있다고 할 것인 점, ㉡ 사립학교법은 제16조 에서 이사회로 하여금 학교법인이 설치한 사립학교의 장 및 교원의 임면에 관한 사항과 학교법인이 설치한 사립학교의 경영에 관한 중요사항 등을 심의·의결하도록 하고 있고, 제29조 제4항 에서 학교에 속하는 회계의 예산은 당해 학교의 장이 편성하되 학교운영위원회 또는 대학평의원회의 자문을 거친 후 이사회의 심의·의결로 확정하고 학교의 장이 집행하도록 하고 있는바, 이러한 규정에 비추어 볼 때 학교법인이 국가의 재정지원 및 보조를 받는 사립학교의 운영에 실질적인 권한을 행사하는 것으로 보이는 점, ㉢ 사립학교교직원뿐만 아니라 학교법인의 사무직원도 사립학교교직원연금법의 적용을 받고, 사립학교교직원연금법에 의한 급여 기타 운용비용 중 일부를 국가가 부담하며, 법인부담금 중 당해 학교에 소요되는 법인부담금의 전액을 학교법인이 부담할 수 없는 때에는 그 부족액을 학교에서 부담하게 할 수 있으며( 사립학교교직원연금법 제47조 제1항 ), 국민건강보험법도 제67조 제1항 에서 학교법인이 교직원의 보험료액 중 그 부담액의 전액을 부담할 수 없을 때에는 그 부족액을 학교에 속하는 회계에서 부담하게 할 수 있다고 규정하고 있는바, 연금과 건강보험에 있어 학교법인과 사립학교의 직원의 지위가 다르지 않으며, 학교법인의 회계와 사립학교의 회계 또한 위와 같이 밀접히 연관되어 있는 점, ㉣ 사립학교교육의 조성을 위하여 행하는 보조 또는 원조에 관하여 필요한 사항을 규정함을 목적으로 제정된 교육인적자원부령인 사립학교보조와 원조에 관한 건 제2조 는 교육인적자원부장관이 매년도 보조의 대상이 되는 학교법인에 대하여 그 보조 예정을 통지하고 보조신청서를 제출하게 하며, 신청에 따라 보조 여부를 결정한 후 그 결과를 학교법인에게 통지하고, 제3조 에서 학교법인에 대한 보조는 국가의 예산집행계획 또는 원조계획에 따라 매년 4기로 나누어 교부하도록 규정하고 있는 등 국가가 학교법인을 직접 보조 또는 원조할 수 있는 근거 법령을 마련하고 있는 점, ㉤ 사립학교법은 제18조의2 에서 이사회회의록을 공개하도록 하고 있을 뿐만 아니라 제28조 에서 학교법인이 그 기본재산을 매도·증여·교환 또는 용도 변경하거나 담보에 제공하고자 할 때 또는 의무의 부담이나 권리의 포기를 하고자 할 때에는 관할청의 허가를 받도록 하면서, 학교교육에 직접 사용되는 학교법인의 재산 중 대통령령이 정하는 것은 이를 매도하거나 담보에 제공할 수 없도록 규정함과 아울러 제31조 및 제32조 에서 학교법인은 그 예산과 결산을 관할청에 보고하고 공시하여야 하고, 매 회계연도 종료 후 2월 이내에 매 회계연도말 현재의 재산목록·대차대조표 및 수지계산서 기타 필요한 장부 또는 서류를 작성하여 이를 항시 그 사무소에 비치하여야 하도록 규정하고 있고, 교육인적자원부는 학교법인과 이들이 설치·경영하는 학교의 재무와 회계의 운영에 관하여 필요한 사항을 규정하기 위하여 사학기관 재무·회계규칙을 제정하여 학교법인의 재산의 관리나 수입과 지출을 엄격히 통제하고 있는바, 이는 학교법인의 고도의 공공성에서 비롯된 것으로 보이는 점, ㉥ 사립학교법 등 관계 법령이 법인 회계 등 제반 장부의 비치 및 재무·회계 현황을 공개하도록 하면서 나아가 이사회 회의록의 공개의무를 부과하는 규정을 두고 있는 것은 학교법인 경영의 투명성과 공공성을 확보하기 위하여 위와 같은 정보의 공개가 특별히 중요함을 부각시키고 개별적인 정보공개청구에 의하지 않고서도 위와 같은 정보를 공개하도록 하려는 것일 뿐 위와 같은 정보만을 학교법인이 공개할 의무가 있는 정보로 한정하려는 취지라고 볼 수는 없고, 더욱이 공공기관이 보유하고 있는 막대하고 다양한 정보에 대한 국민의 자유로운 접근을 인정하여 헌법이 보장하는 국민의 알 권리를 보장하고, 일반 국민이 일방적인 정보수령자나 정보조작의 대상에서 벗어나 국정의 감시·비판자로서 실질적 지위를 확보하려는 정보공개제도의 취지에 비추어 볼 때, 학교법인의 홍보나 일방적 정보제공이 아니라 국민의 청구에 의한 의무적 공개를 가능케 하여 필요한 정보를 주체적으로 입수할 기회를 부여한다는 점에서 법에 의한 정보공개청구권을 별도로 인정할 필요성이 없지 아니한 점 등을 고려할 때, 학교법인에 법에 의한 일반적인 정보공개의무를 부담시킬 실질적인 필요성 또한 크다고 할 것이다.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Ultimately, the prior defendant's assertion on different premise is without merit, and the disposition rejecting the disclosure of the instant information is unlawful on the ground that the school foundation is not a public institution obligated to disclose the information.

B. The defendant's assertion and judgment

(1) The defendant's assertion

The defendant argues that the request of this case is legitimate because the plaintiff has abused the information disclosure system solely for the purpose of inducing the defendant by gathering the defendant's misconduct and using the case of criminal charge. The defendant asserts that the request of this case is legitimate, since there are no legal grounds for requesting the disclosure of the evidence such as the corporation's revenue and expenditure cash book, receipts for the corporation's revenue and expenditure cash book, documentary evidence files such as receipts for the corporation's revenue and expenditure cash book

(2) Determination:

Therefore, in an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, in order to realize the substantial rule of law and protect the trust of the other party to the administrative disposition by guaranteeing the other party's right of defense of the administrative disposition, the disposition agency may add or modify other reasons only to the extent that the original reason based on the original disposition is recognized to be identical with the basic facts, and shall not be allowed to assert as a ground for disposition on the grounds of separate facts that are not recognized to be identical with the basic facts (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu4704 delivered on October 12, 1995, etc.). As seen earlier, the fact that the defendant specified only the reason that the school juristic person is not an institution subject to information disclosure due to the disposition in this case is not an institution subject to information disclosure, i.e., the plaintiff's use of the information disclosure system, the reason that the request should be restricted, and evidence such as receipts and disbursements of corporate revenue and expenditure, receipts of corporate accounting books, etc., and related receipts, etc. paid by the juristic person cannot be said to be identical with the original grounds for disposition.

Furthermore, Article 3 of the Information Disclosure Act declares the principle of information disclosure by public institutions, while Article 9 provides limited list of information subject to non-disclosure. In light of the purpose, contents, and purport of the Information Disclosure Act, it cannot be deemed that there is any special limitation to the purpose of requesting information disclosure. Thus, barring special circumstances such as seeking information for the purpose of bullying by the defendant, the right to request information disclosure may not be restricted. In this case, there is no clear evidence that the plaintiff would distort or distort the plaintiff's request for information disclosure, or the document of this case is disclosed only for the purpose of abusing the defendant's misconduct without the administrative surveillance purpose, and there is no clear evidence that the plaintiff would abuse the information disclosure system. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the request should be restricted because the plaintiff's use of the information disclosure system is without merit or necessity. On the other hand, Article 3 declares the principle of information disclosure by public institutions under Article 9, and since Article 9 provides limited list of information subject to non-disclosure from the public institution, the public institution's request for information disclosure and receipt of the defendant's legal grounds for non-disclosure.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Shin Jae-sop (Presiding Judge)