2011Du6578 Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Information Disclosure

A person shall be appointed.

Law Firm B

Seoul Regional Construction Administration

Attorney Kim Jae-soo et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu25727 Decided February 11, 2011

March 14, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court with respect to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, presumed that the Defendant, while rendering the instant disposition, did not constitute a ground for disposition under Article 9(1)4 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”), and determined that the Defendant’s ground for disposition under subparagraph 4 and subparagraph 5 of the same paragraph, which are the initial ground for disposition, cannot be the same as the basic facts, in the instant lawsuit, since the Defendant’s ground for disposition under subparagraph 4 and subparagraph 4 of the same paragraph, which are the ground for disposition, cannot be said to be identical.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above measures of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the addition of grounds for disposition as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, this part of the ground of appeal, i.e., whether the instant information constitutes Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act, was based on the court of first instance cited by the court below’s determination as to whether the court of first instance erred in its interpretation. As to the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below’s determination as to whether the lower court’s primary decision is justifiable is without merit

3. As to the third ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the instant information did not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on information subject to non-disclosure

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Park Young-young

Jeju High Court Decision 201Na1548