(영문) 부산고등법원 2017.8.25. 선고 2017누21135 판결

The decision of disclosure of information on July 12, 2016 rendered by the Defendant to B on July 12, 2016 on the part of the information set forth in [Attachment 1] 1 to 16 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's decision to disclose information on July 12, 2016 to B, other than the information subject to non-disclosure listed in attached Table 2, shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this case is identical to that for the first instance judgment, except where the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion is added under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The possibility of disclosure of each of the instant information to a criminal suspect or a third party who is not the victim cannot be ruled out, and in such a case, it is highly probable that the investigation and the maintenance of public prosecution may seriously interfere with the duties. Accordingly, each of the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act.

2) In addition, each of the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act, which is deemed likely to harm legitimate interests of corporations, etc., if disclosed.

B. Determination

1) In light of the purpose of the information disclosure system and the legislative purport of the information disclosure subject to non-disclosure, “information which has considerable grounds to recognize that the disclosure of information is considerably difficult to perform duties” under Article 7(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act refers to the case where disclosure of information in question is highly likely to obstruct the fair and efficient performance of duties pertaining to the prevention and investigation of crimes, and the extent of disclosure is considerably significant. Whether information constitutes this case should be determined carefully according to specific cases by comparing and comparing the interests such as the fairness of duties protected by non-disclosure and the interests such as guaranteeing the citizens’ right to know, guaranteeing the citizens’ right to participate in state affairs, and securing the transparency of state administration (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du15694, Nov. 27, 2008). In other words, each of the information of this case can not be acknowledged as having been submitted by the labor inspector belonging to the defendant, or the Plaintiff’s right to file a criminal complaint with the investigative agency, including the Plaintiff’s right to file a criminal complaint and the procedure of abuse of rights.

The Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act is without merit.

2) In addition, the following circumstances are recognized by the evidence and the purport of the entire argument of each of the instant case. In other words, each of the instant information can not be deemed to constitute "business and trade secrets of corporations, etc." under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Information Disclosure Act, and it is difficult to recognize that the disclosure of each of the instant information constitutes the Plaintiff's business and trade secrets of corporations, etc. in light of the aforementioned circumstances, even if there is room to deem that each of the instant information constitutes the Plaintiff's business and trade secrets of corporations, etc., and there is no possibility to seriously undermine the Plaintiff's legitimate interest if disclosed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's assertion that each of the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Information Disclosure Act does not constitute information under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.