logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.04.29 2019누65179
정보공개거부처분취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as follows: (a) the “this court” of the first instance judgment No. 5 is dismissed as “the first instance court”; and (b) the part newly asserted by the defendant in this court is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the judgment under paragraph (2) to the part newly asserted by the defendant in this court; and (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion did not state the grounds for non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act at the time of the instant disposition, but the instant information constitutes the third party’s personal information subject to non-disclosure under the said provision, and thus, it should be deemed that the additional modification of the grounds for disposition is exceptionally possible in order to protect the information.

B. 1) In an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, a disposition agency may add or alter other grounds only to the extent that the grounds for the initial disposition are recognized to be identical to the basic factual relations. The identity of the basic factual relations here is determined based on whether the basic social factual relations are identical in the basic point prior to the legal evaluation of the grounds for disposition. Thus, if the grounds for disposition are not identical, the additional or modified grounds did not stipulate such grounds at the time of the initial disposition, and even if the parties have been aware of such facts, they cannot be deemed identical to the original grounds for disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du24913, Apr. 12, 2012). 2) The Defendant presented only Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act at the time of the instant disposition to the extent that the information of this case falls under the category of non-disclosure under Article 6 of the same Act.

However, the Information Disclosure Act.

arrow