[1] Whether the claimant who received the disposition of refusal to disclose information has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the disposition of refusal (affirmative)

[2] Criteria for determining whether the disclosure of information under Article 7 (1) 6 (c) of the Official Information Disclosure Act constitutes "information deemed necessary for the public interest"

[3] The case holding that the disclosure of personal information including documentary evidence related to the execution details by detailed items of business promotion expenses of local governments does not constitute "information deemed necessary for the public interest"

[4] In a case where the part falling under the information subject to non-disclosure is distinguishable from the part that can be disclosed, and the part can be separated, the method of writing the judgment

[1] The citizen's right to information disclosure is a specific right legally protected. Thus, the claimant who requested the public institution to disclose information, but received the disposition rejecting the disclosure, has legal interest in seeking the revocation of the disposition rejecting the disclosure through administrative litigation.

[2] Whether disclosure of information under the proviso of Article 7 (1) 6 (c) of the Official Information Disclosure Act constitutes "information deemed necessary for the public interest" should be determined carefully in accordance with specific cases by comparing and comparing public interests such as the protection of privacy of individuals protected by non-disclosure and the securing of transparency in state administration, which are protected by disclosure.

[3] The case holding that the disclosure of personal information including documentary evidence about the execution details by detailed items of business promotion expenses of local governments does not constitute "information deemed necessary for the public interest"

[4] When the court examines whether a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information by an administrative agency's refusal to disclose information contains parts that constitute information subject to non-disclosure and that can be disclosed, and two parts can be separated within the scope that does not go against the purport of the request for disclosure, the court shall specify the part that can be disclosed among the above information and indicate that only the part concerning the information that can be disclosed among the dispositions rejecting the above disposition by the administrative agency is revoked

[1] Articles 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, and 18 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 6 (c) of the Official Information Disclosure Act / [3] Article 7 (1) 6 (c) of the Official Information Disclosure Act / [4] Articles 7 (1) 6 (c) of the Official Information Disclosure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2918 delivered on March 11, 2003 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Du724 delivered on March 11, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2918 Delivered on March 11, 2003

Plaintiff

l. Bll. Ol.

Daegu High Court Decision 2001Nu190 delivered on July 6, 2001

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding the legal interest, etc. to file a lawsuit seeking revocation of information disclosure refusal

A. In light of the purpose, contents, and purport of the Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions (hereinafter “Act”), the citizen’s right to request information disclosure is a specific right legally protected. Thus, the claimant who requested information from a public institution but received a disposition rejecting information disclosure is a legal interest to seek revocation of the disposition rejecting information disclosure through administrative litigation.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legal interest or party standing to file a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition rejecting a request for information disclosure. We cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of

B. In addition, in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for disclosure of detailed items of business promotion expenses from July 1, 1995 to March 31, 199 and evidential documents related thereto (hereinafter "information of this case") does not constitute abuse of the right, and there is no illegality in the misapprehension of legal principles as to abuse of the right. The allegation in the grounds of appeal on this point is not acceptable.

2. As to the illegality of the disposition rejecting the instant information disclosure

A. The court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff filed a claim for disclosure of the information of this case with the defendant, but the defendant rejected disclosure of the information of this case on the grounds that there are many information about a specific person including an individual, etc., and acknowledged that the information of this case was subject to the disposition of this case. The court below rejected disclosure of the information of this case on the ground that it is possible to delete the information of this case, including the name and resident registration number of the relevant person, etc., and disclose only a detailed statement of execution of business promotion expenses or a copy of it to limited disclosure methods, as it is possible for the defendant to disclose the information of this case on the grounds that the public interest, such as guaranteeing citizens' right to know and securing legitimacy and efficiency in budget execution, and promoting the revitalization of the local autonomy system by enhancing the public's interest in administration and participation spirit in budget execution, and enhancing transparency in administrative procedures, as the business promotion expenses are executed or wasted for private use.

B. First, according to the above determination of the court below, it is not clear whether it is reasonable to disclose all of the information of this case including personal information, or whether it is reasonable to disclose only the remaining part of the information of this case except the personal information of this case (i.e., the court below's explanation that it is necessary to disclose the information of this case in order to realize the public interest of securing legality and efficiency in budget execution guaranteed by Article 7 (1) 6 (c) of the Act, and that the disposition of this case which rejected disclosure of the information of this case is revoked in its disposition. In light of the above, the judgment of the court below is reasonable to disclose all of the information of this case including personal information, but on the other hand, in light of the fact that the court below states that the information of this case and the remaining part of the information of this case are separate from personal information, it is reasonable to disclose the information of this case only the remaining part of the information of this case excluding the personal information of this case).

(1) First, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons, with the purport that it is reasonable to disclose the entire information of this case, including personal information, since disclosure of personal information included in the information of this case constitutes "information deemed necessary for public interest" under Article 7 (1) 6 (c) of the Act.

In other words, Article 7 (1) 6 of the Act provides that "personal information that can identify a specific person by the name, resident registration number, etc. included in the information in question" and Article 7 (1) 6 of the Act provides that "information that is prepared or acquired by a public institution is excluded from "information that is deemed necessary for the public interest or for the protection of rights of an individual." Here, whether disclosure constitutes "information that is deemed necessary for the public interest or for the protection of rights of an individual" should be determined carefully in accordance with specific cases by comparing and comparing the interests of an individual protected by non-disclosure such as the protection of privacy and the public interest such as securing transparency in state administration protected by the disclosure. Unless there are special circumstances, it is not desirable to disclose personal information in this case from the perspective of privacy protection of the individual, and it cannot be readily concluded that the disclosure does not constitute "information that is deemed necessary for the public interest."

Therefore, if the court below decided to the effect that it is reasonable to disclose all of the information of this case, including personal information, it constitutes an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7(1)6 of the Act.

(2) In addition, even if the judgment of the court below is understood to the purport that it is reasonable to disclose only the remaining parts of the information of this case, excluding the personal information, there are the following problems.

In other words, the order of the judgment must be able to specify the contents by itself (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu817, Mar. 24, 1987, etc.). Meanwhile, Article 12 of the Act provides that in a case where the information requested for disclosure contains a mixture of the part falling under the information subject to non-disclosure under each subparagraph of Article 7 (1) of the Act and the part that can be disclosed, if two parts can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of the request for disclosure, the part falling under the information subject to non-disclosure should be disclosed unless it violates the purpose of the request for disclosure. As a result of examining the illegality of the disposition of the administrative agency's refusal of disclosure of information, if the information refused to disclose is combined with the part that can be disclosed, and if it can be recognized that two parts can be separated within the extent that does not violate the purport of the request for disclosure, the part that can be disclosed should be specified, and only the part

Nevertheless, the court below held that it is reasonable to disclose only the remaining part of the information of this case excluding the personal information among the information of this case, but the disposition of this case was completely revoked by the defendant. It did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as to whether the part of the information of this case excluding the information of this case excluding the information of this case can be separated and separated from the part that constitutes information subject to non-disclosure, or erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the method of recording the decision or Article 12 of the Act.

C. The ground of appeal assigning this point is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)