[1] In a case where it is evident that a citizen’s request for information disclosure constitutes abuse of his/her right, whether to permit the exercise of the right to information disclosure (negative)

[2] The case holding that Gap's claim for disclosure of information is not allowed as an abuse of his right, in case where Gap who was serving in prison requested the chief prosecutor of the district public prosecutor's office to disclose the part other than other person's personal information among the investigation records of non-prosecution case to himself, but the chief prosecutor made a non-disclosure decision on the ground that it constitutes a non-disclosure information under Article 9

[1] Considering the meaning and nature of the general right to request information disclosure, the contents and legislative purpose of Articles 3, 5(1), and 6 of the former Act on the Disclosure of Information (amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) and no limitation is placed on the grounds that the Information Disclosure Act intends to use information or access information in relation to the exercise of the right to request information disclosure, a citizen’s claim for information disclosure shall be widely permitted as a matter of principle, unless it falls under information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act, but in fact, it is reasonable to allow the exercise of the right to request information disclosure where it is evident that the information constitutes abuse of the right, such as where the information is intended to obtain unjust benefits that cannot be accepted by social norms by using the information disclosure system without the intention to acquire or utilize the pertinent information, or where it is evident that the information constitutes abuse of the right,

[2] The case holding that Gap's claim for disclosure of information is not allowed as an abuse of his right, on the grounds that Gap's claim for disclosure of information constitutes a non-disclosure information under Article 9 (1) of the former Public Institution's Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013) although Gap in prison filed a request with the chief prosecutor of the district public prosecutor's office for disclosure of the part other than other's personal information among the investigation records of non-prosecution case's non-prosecution case's investigation records with him, but Gap's claim for disclosure of information is not a claim for disclosure of information for the purpose of accessing the above information, but it is highly probable that Gap won a lawsuit seeking revocation of rejection disposition upon the rejection of the claim, and then he won a lawsuit seeking monetary benefit after receiving a large amount of the litigation expenses from him as litigation costs, or avoided forced labor by attending

[1] Articles 3, 5(1), and 6 of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (Amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013) / [2] Articles 3, 5(1), 6, and 9(1) of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (Amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Doz., Attorneys Kim Jong-san, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Chief Prosecutor of Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu31976 decided June 11, 2014

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The right to know, in particular, the right to access information held and managed by public institutions, is recognized in relation to the freedom of expression, which is a fundamental right under our Constitution, and the content of such right includes the right to request disclosure of information held and managed by any public institution.

Article 3 of the former Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions (amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) provides for the principle of information disclosure that information held and managed by public institutions should be disclosed in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Article 5(1) provides that all citizens shall have the right to request information disclosure, and Article 6 provides for the contents of the right to request information disclosure, procedures for its exercise, etc. so that the people’s right to request information can be respected by respect of the people’s right to request information disclosure, such as the implementation of this Act and the revision of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

Considering the meaning and nature of the general right to request information disclosure, the content and legislative purpose of the Information Disclosure Act, and the fact that the Information Disclosure Act does not impose any limitation on the purpose of using information or on the grounds for accessing information in relation to the exercise of the right to request information disclosure, a citizen’s claim for information disclosure should be widely permitted as a matter of principle unless it does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act, but in fact, it is reasonable to allow the exercise of the right to request information disclosure in cases where it is evident that the information constitutes abuse of the right, such as where it is intended to obtain or utilize the pertinent information without the intention to acquire or utilize it, or where it

2. A. The record reveals the following facts.

(1) The Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for more than three years and six months, and repeatedly filed a variety of claims against various state agencies for the disclosure of information over several times. As to the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of information disclosure with each court nationwide (hereinafter “claim seeking the disclosure of information”).

(2) In multiple cases, the administrative agency decided to disclose or partially disclose the Plaintiff’s information disclosure claim, but the Plaintiff did not receive the relevant information.

(3) The Plaintiff appointed a specific attorney as an attorney in a lawsuit claiming the disclosure of information, including the original judgment in this case. However, the Plaintiff’s attorney in the original instance only stated that he/she was present at the date of pleading that he/she sought a judgment of dismissal on the date of pleading, and did not do any act of pleading, such as submission of preparatory documents or documentary evidence. In an interview with the staff of the correctional institution, the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that he/she would distribute the attorney’s fees when he/she was paid the attorney’s fees after winning

(4) At least 90 times of the Plaintiff’s appearance in the court to appear in the pleading of a lawsuit claiming information disclosure, the Plaintiff did not pay the cost of attendance in the court.

(5) In consultation with the prison staff, the Plaintiff stated to the effect that “A request for disclosure of information and a lawsuit seeking disclosure of information, in progress, was not for remedies for infringement of rights, and, as a result, an administrative power of the State agency was consumed in vain, the Plaintiff’s act will be suspended.”

B. According to these circumstances, the plaintiff did not claim the disclosure of information to the defendant for access to the information of this case, but rather, if the claim is rejected, the plaintiff won the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the rejection disposition and received monetary benefits as litigation costs after receiving a large amount of the litigation costs actually spent in the lawsuit, or avoided forced labor by attending the court on the date of pleading during the number of days, and there is considerable room to deem that the plaintiff requested the disclosure of information for the purpose of evading forced labor by attending the court at the date of pleading during the above legal principles, and such claim for

C. Nevertheless, the court below did not examine whether the request for information disclosure of this case constitutes an abuse of right, and held that part of the disposition of this case which rejected the plaintiff's request for information disclosure of this case was unlawful on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. This is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to abuse of right in the request for information

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)