The judgment below

The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The phrase “where there is a reasonable ground to believe that disclosure would substantially obstruct the fair performance of duties when disclosed” under Article 9(1)5 of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) means where there is a high probability that fair performance of duties would considerably interfere with the fair performance of duties when disclosed in light of the purpose of the information disclosure system under Article 1 of the same Act and the legislative intent of Article 9(1)5 of the same Act, and the legislative intent of the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the same Act. The issue of whether disclosure constitutes such a high level of probability shall be determined carefully depending on specific matters by comparing the interests of fairness, etc. of duties protected by non-disclosure with the interests of guaranteeing citizens’ right to know, guaranteeing citizens’ participation in national affairs, and securing transparency in national administration.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du2913 Decided June 10, 2010; 2013Du20301 Decided July 24, 2014, etc.). Meanwhile, “matters in the process of audit, supervision, inspection, test, regulation, tendering contract, technology development, personnel management, decision-making, or internal review” under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act are the examples of the information subject to non-disclosure. As such, the meeting-related materials and minutes, etc., on which the decision-making process was made, are recorded, cannot be deemed as matters in the process of decision-making, but may be included in the information subject to non-disclosure as matters corresponding to the matters in the decision-making process.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Du12946 delivered on August 22, 2003, etc.). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the lower court is the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs.