2011Guhap15138 Revocation of Disposition of Non-Disclosure of Information

Group of Attorneys-at-Law in the Democratic Society

In Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1555 - 3 new buildings 5 floors

President Kim Jong-soo of the Representative

Attorney Song-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant

Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Law Firm Pacific (Law Firm Pacific)

[Defendant-Appellant]

March 21, 2012

April 13, 2012

1. The lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

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

The defendant, on March 3, 2011, revoked the non-disclosure of the Chinese-U.S. FTA additional negotiations against the plaintiff on June 2007, Korea's non-disclosure of the Chinese-U.S. visa information that Korea received from the United States.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an organization in which attorneys-at-law organized research for the protection of fundamental human rights and the realization of social justice, etc., and the Defendant was an administrative agency that had negotiated with the United States for concluding a Free Trade Agreement (Frededede Agreement) with the United States.

B. On February 3, 2006, the Defendant, who published the commencement of negotiations for the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. on April 2, 2007, declared the conclusion of the above Free Trade Agreement negotiations on April 2, 2007, and subsequently continued the negotiations on June 30, 2007 at the request of the U.S. side and subsequently completed the negotiations on June 30, 2007. The Defendant demanded to allocate the associate visa 1 to Korea, but this was not formally accepted from the U.S. side.

C. On February 10, 2011, the Plaintiff published a book stating that the Kim Jong-sung, the head of the Defendant’s trade negotiation headquarters of the said FTA, refers to the Korea-U.S. FTA. In the process of the renegotiation of the said FTA, and revealed that he was delivered a letter to secure the visa of the Republic of Korea on the U.S. side (hereinafter “the letter of visa”) on the part of the U.S., and filed a request for the disclosure of information with the Defendant on March 3, 201, on the ground that the Defendant was not a information acquired and held in the course of performing his duties, but the Plaintiff was dismissed on March 15, 201, but the Plaintiff filed an objection on March 15, 201, but was dismissed on March 31, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2-2, 2-1, 4-1, 2, 3-1, and 10-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant lawsuit is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion and the defendant's defense of safety

1) The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the fact that the defendant recognized the fact that the books published by the head of the trade negotiations headquarters in the United States of America, the books published by Kim Jong-tae, and the fact that he received the quota in the process of the instant trial, the defendant recognized that he holds the quota in a professional position, and that the contents of the quota in a professional position constitute a matter of all the people interest, such as Korean students, etc. related to the employment in the United States, and thus, the disposition of refusing the plaintiff's request for information disclosure is unlawful.

2) The defendant's defense of principal safety

The lawsuit of this case seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is unlawful as there is no legal interest seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case, since the professional visa that the plaintiff requested the disclosure of information is not information owned and managed by the defendant.

B. Determination

1) 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 is sufficient for a person who seeks information disclosure to prove that there is a considerable probability that the person who seeks information disclosure will hold and manage the information to be disclosed. However, if a public institution does not hold and manage the information, there is no legal interest to seek cancellation of the disposition of refusal to disclosure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du19459, Jan. 13, 2006).

2) According to the overall purport of Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 9-1, 2, 3, and Gap evidence No. 11 and the whole arguments, the whole trade negotiations process with the U.S., where Kim Jong-sung received from the U.S. side a letter (Evidence No. 9-2), which is related to the Korean professional visa in the name of the fathery Edson in charge of the U.S. at the time, from the U.S. side, he/she received from the U.S. side, and although he/she is recognized that the present letter exists, he/she is recognized by the overall purport of each of the evidence and arguments, and (i) the defendant did not retain and manage the quota in accordance with the whole process of the trial of this case, and (ii) the defendant did not disclose that he/she did not own and manage the new document that he/she had a non-public opinion in light of the fact that he/she had a non-public opinion related to the quota in this case, and (iii) the contents of the new document were presented by the court.

3. Conclusion

If so, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Oral of the presiding judge

Judges Yang Ro-ju

Justices Kim Tae-hun

1) The number or volume of visaes required for legitimate employment in the United States by experts in medical care and law of Korean nationality;