(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.5.7.선고 2019구합68894 판결

1. On November 7, 2019, the Defendant’s refusal to allow perusal and copy of the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1, which the Plaintiff rendered on November 7, 2019, shall revoke the remainder, excluding the non-disclosure information listed in

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 10% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

Purport of claim

On November 7, 2019, the defendant revoked his/her application for access to and copy of the information listed in the attached Table 1, which was made against the plaintiff on November 7, 2019.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 2018, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against B with the Sung-nam Branch of the Labor Standards Act in violation of the Labor Standards Act (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accusation case”), and the Sung-nam Branch of the Labor and Labor and Labor and Labor Office of China sent the instant accusation case to the prosecutor’s office (defluence of evidence). As to the instant case, the head of Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office was issued a disposition of suspicion (defluence of evidence) on October 31, 2018 with the head of Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office No. 2018-No. 38352, the head of Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office (profluence of evidence).

B. On April 9, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a copy of the records on the Plaintiff’s statements, documents, and documents submitted by the Defendant, the Defendant, on July 11, 2019, issued a notice of non-permission of copying on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s statement and documents submitted by the Plaintiff constituted Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecution (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 3 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Information requested by the Plaintiff on record keeping is not subject to restrictions on copying records under Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Business of Preserving Prosecution, but does not fall under information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

Attached Form 3 shall be as listed in attached Table 3.

4. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

(a) Whether the rules on affairs for the preservation of prosecution can be the legal basis for the disposition;

As seen earlier, the Defendant’s instant disposition based on Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Affairs for the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Offices was based on the fact that the instant disposition was rendered by the Defendant. However, Article 22 of the Rules on the Affairs for the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Offices merely provides administrative rules as administrative rules for the internal affairs of administrative agencies without any legal basis for delegation. Thus, the restriction on reading and copying of the said Rules cannot be deemed as falling under “where the restriction on reading and copying of the said Rules is set forth as confidential matters by other Acts or orders under other Acts, which are the grounds for non-disclosure under Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du3049, May 25, 2006). Article 22(1)

B. Whether an additional change in the reasons for the disposition is permitted

In an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, the agency may add or change other grounds to the extent that the grounds for the original disposition are identical to the factual basis thereof.

The Defendant stated only Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Business of the Prosecutor’s Preservation at the time of the instant disposition as the ground for disposition, but did not change specific facts in the instant lawsuit, and asserts that Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act is added to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Since Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act does not significantly differ from the contents under Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Business of the Prosecutor’s Preservation, the addition of the above ground for disposition is lawful as it additionally presents the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes within the identity of basic facts, and thus, is lawful.

C. Whether it falls under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act

1) Relevant legal principles

The main text of Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that “personal information, such as names and resident registration numbers included in the relevant information, which is likely to infringe on the privacy or the freedom of privacy if disclosed, is one of the information subject to non-disclosure.” In this context, the information subject to non-disclosure should include not only personal identification information which determines whether the information constitutes non-disclosure based on the type or type of information, such as name and resident registration number, but also personal identification information which determines whether the information constitutes non-disclosure, and also personal confidential information is disclosed due to the disclosure of the information, and as a result, information which is likely to interfere with personal and mental life or be unable to lead a free privacy.”

Therefore, the content of statements other than personal information of suspects, etc. written in the suspect interrogation protocol, etc. among the records of non-prosecution disposition shall also be deemed non-disclosure under the main sentence of Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act in cases where it is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Du2361, Jun. 18

In a case where the court examines whether a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information by an administrative agency is illegal, and where it recognizes that the information refused to disclose is mixed with the information that falls under the grounds for non-disclosure and that the information can be separated within the extent that does not contravene the purport of the request for disclosure, it may order the partial revocation of disclosure. In such a case where partial disclosure of information is allowed, the court may exclude or delete the relevant information from the information in light of the method and procedure for disclosure of the information, and only disclose the remaining information, and it is worth disclosing the information only with the remaining information (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du12785, Dec. 10, 2009).

2) Determination

According to the result of the court’s non-disclosure and examination of the information of this case, the information of this case includes personal information, such as the name, resident registration number, occupation, address or residence of the suspect and reference witness, registered place, contact information such as telephone number, contact information such as contact information, family relation, religion, and academic background. Among them, the name of the suspect and reference witness should be disclosed in the absence of special circumstances from the point of view of necessity or usefulness for disclosure of investigation records, and rights protection of individuals. However, the remaining information except the name is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals, but it is reasonable to keep the information confidential because the benefit the plaintiff gains from disclosure of the above information does not exceed the profit that the plaintiff gains.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the information listed in the separate sheet No. 2 among the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act. Therefore, the part refusing to disclose the remaining information of the instant case, excluding the information subject to non-disclosure listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list,

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, and part of the claim is accepted, and the remainder is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

The presiding judge, senior judge, and senior

Judges Seo-won;

Judges Kim Gin-han

Note tin

1) The plaintiff stated in the complaint as "disposition rejecting the disclosure of information", but according to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is a clerical error of "A's refusal to allow perusal and copy".

As seen above, the above prior determination is made.