logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.06.17 2015누62936
정보공개거부처분취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: "The facts are acknowledged, and it does not seem to be business secrets" part of the fifth through Twelve of the fifth to the judgment of the court of first instance; "The whole sales contract of this case cannot be deemed to be business secrets of the defendant or the seller of this case or the company subject to the disclosure of the sales contract of this case due to the disclosure of the sales contract of this case," and the part of the "the seller of this case or the company subject to the public disclosure of the sales contract of this case" of the sixth and the part of the 13th to "the defendant does not constitute "the corporation or organization" under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Information Disclosure Act, and the part of the 6th to be deleted is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment of abuse of rights at the court of first instance as to the abuse of rights at the court of first instance, and therefore, the part is cited under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 40 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) In light of the principle of disclosure of information held and managed by a public institution, it can be exceptionally disclosed only to the information subject to non-disclosure as prescribed by the proviso of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act. The burden of proof on non-disclosure is borne by a public institution. However, the evidence alone submitted by the Defendant is insufficient to recognize that the remaining information except the information on a seller’s account number is also a non-disclosure information under the proviso of Article 9(1)7 of the same Act.

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for the disclosure of the instant information constitutes abuse of rights as it goes beyond reasonableness and is solely for the purpose of inducing the Defendant.

(b)the subject matter of the request for determination;

arrow