2015Nu32508 Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Information Disclosure

A

Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap1518 decided October 4, 2013

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu49632 Decided June 20, 2014

Supreme Court Decision 2014Du38903 Decided January 15, 2015

June 24, 2015

July 8, 2015

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's rejection disposition against disclosure of information against the plaintiff on May 13, 2013 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for the determination of "2-A. The plaintiff's assertion" (2-2-A. the 2-A. the 13-2-2-2-3-2-3-2) as follows, and the part of "2-c. the judgment" (3-2-3-2) as follows. Thus, the court's decision is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful, since the instant information does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure. The Defendant asserts that the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”), and the part that ought to be disclosed even if part of the information is disclosed in accordance with the purport of the judgment of the first instance court, the judgment of the first instance court alone cannot clearly determine the scope of non-disclosure.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. Relevant legal principles

The citizen's right to know, in particular, the right to access information held and managed by public institutions, is recognized in relation to the freedom of expression, which is a fundamental right under the Constitution of Korea, and the contents of such right include the so-called general right to information disclosure that anyone can request the public

The Information Disclosure Act enacted for the purpose of guaranteeing citizens' right to know and securing citizens' participation in state affairs and transparency in the operation of state affairs provides that information held and managed by public institutions should be disclosed in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Article 5(1) provides that all citizens shall have the right to request information disclosure, and Article 6 provides for the contents of the right to request general information disclosure and the procedure for exercising the right to request information disclosure, such as the provisions on the duties of public institutions such as the implementation of this Act and the revision of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, so that people's right

Considering the meaning and nature of the general right to request information disclosure, the content and legislative purpose of the Information Disclosure Act, and the fact that the Information Disclosure Act does not impose any limitation on the purpose of using information or on the grounds for accessing information in relation to the exercise of the right to request information disclosure, a citizen’s claim for information disclosure should be widely permitted in principle unless it falls under the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act, and the claim for information disclosure cannot be readily concluded as abuse of rights solely on the grounds that the applicant’s purpose or reason for requesting information is unclear. However, in fact, the right to request information disclosure cannot be readily concluded as abuse of rights on the grounds that the applicant’s purpose or reason for claiming the information is unclear. However, in a case where the information disclosure claim is made for the purpose of inducing public officials in charge of the information disclosure without any intent to acquire or utilize the

(b) Fact of recognition;

① At the time of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff was sentenced to three and a half years of imprisonment, and repeated a variety of claims against various government agencies for disclosure of information over a period of 150 times, and filed a suit for revocation of a claim for cancellation of information disclosure (hereinafter referred to as “claim for revocation of information disclosure”).

② The administrative agency decided to disclose or partially disclose the Plaintiff’s request for disclosure of information in multiple cases, but the Plaintiff did not receive the relevant information.

③ The Plaintiff appointed a specific attorney as a legal representative in a lawsuit claiming the disclosure of information, including the instant case. However, the first instance court also prepared and submitted a written complaint and a preparatory document on August 30, 2013 before the appointment of a legal representative, and directly submitted documentary evidence to the court even after the appointment of the legal representative. While the Plaintiff’s legal representative did not submit a preparatory document or documentary evidence at the first instance court and the lower court. In an interview with the employees of the correctional institution, the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that he/she would have distributed it with the attorney when he/she received the attorney’s fees by winning the litigation claiming the disclosure of information and being paid the attorney’s fees

④ At least 90 times, the Plaintiff appeared in court in the nationwide court to be present at the pleading of a lawsuit demanding information disclosure, and the Plaintiff did not pay the cost of attendance in the court.

⑤ The Plaintiff stated to the effect that “A request for disclosure of information and a lawsuit seeking disclosure of information, in consultation with the prison staff, in progress, was not for remedies for infringement of rights, and that “a request for disclosure of information and a lawsuit seeking disclosure of information was an act of vaining the administrative power of a State agency, and thus, would be suspended

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in the evidence of Nos. 1 through 13 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Sub-decision

According to the above facts, the plaintiff did not request the defendant to disclose the information of this case for access to the information of this case, but if the claim is rejected, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff won the lawsuit claiming the revocation of the rejection disposition and received monetary benefits as litigation costs after winning the lawsuit and paying the amount equivalent to the actual litigation costs incurred in the lawsuit, or requested the disclosure of information for the purpose of attending the lawsuit on the date of pleading during the number of days, and such request for disclosure of

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful without having to determine the remainder of the Plaintiff’s remaining arguments.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Kim Gung-sung

Judgment of the Supreme Court