Whether an applicant for information disclosure has the right to file a request by designating a specific information disclosure method (affirmative) / Where a public institution decides to disclose information subject to the request for information disclosure by means other than the disclosure method applied by the claimant, whether the applicant has made a partial rejection disposition on the information disclosure method (affirmative), and whether it can be contested as an appeal litigation (affirmative)

The former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “former Information Disclosure Act”) provides that an applicant for disclosure of information (hereinafter “applicant”) may file a request for disclosure by designating the method of disclosure of information, as well as by which he/she may file a request for disclosure. In cases where a request is made for electronic disclosure of information in a non-electronic form, a public institution has a duty to comply with the request in principle, and furthermore, where a request for disclosure of non-electronic form is made in an electronic form, a non-electronic form may be made public after converting it into an electronic form according to a discretionary determination. This is intended to promote the efficient utilization of information and promote the convenience of the claimant, thereby ensuring the citizen’s right to know faithfully that is the purpose of the former Information Disclosure Act. Accordingly, the applicant has the legal right to file

Therefore, the disclosure of the information subject to the request for disclosure by the public agency shall be made, but if the decision to disclose the information by means other than the disclosure method applied by the claimant is made, the part of the request for disclosure of information shall be rejected, and the claimant may appeal against it as an appeal litigation.

Articles 10(1)2 and 15(1) and (2) of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (Amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013); Article 14(1)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Official Information Disclosure Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24837, Nov. 13, 2013);

Plaintiff

South Ocean Market

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu72117 decided May 20, 2016

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. If an administrative agency’s refusal to take action following a citizen’s affirmative filing of an application constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, the filing of the application must be an exercise of public authority or a similar administrative action, and the refusal should cause any change in the applicant’s legal relationship, and the citizen must have the right to file an application under the relevant law or sound reasoning demanding that the refusal be made (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu14036, Jul. 10, 1998; 2007Du1316, Oct. 11, 2007; 2007Du1316, Oct. 11, 207; 2007; hereinafter referred to as “the right to file an application”) and the existence of the right to file an application, which serves as the premise for recognizing the disposition of the refusal, shall be determined abstractly by the interpretation of the relevant law, and specifically by which the application of a specific person may be accepted, shall be determined within the merits of the litigation case (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu263607, Jun. 111, 1999, 200000

2. Article 10(1)2 of the former Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions (amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) provides that an applicant may file a request by submitting a written request for information disclosure stating “the content and method of disclosure of the information requesting the disclosure,” etc. In addition, Article 14(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Information Disclosure Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24837, Nov. 13, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) provides that “information held and managed in an electronic form” shall be one of the methods of information disclosure, and Article 15 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that “Where a requester requests information held and managed in an electronic form to be disclosed in an electronic form, such disclosure shall be made in an electronic form unless it is substantially impracticable for the public institution to make such request in an electronic form” and “where the applicant requests information to be disclosed in an electronic form, such disclosure may not be made in an electronic form.”

As above, the Information Disclosure Act provides that the claimant may request the disclosure of information by designating the method of disclosure of information and by electronically disclosing information in an electronic form, and where the claimant requests the disclosure of information in an electronic form, the public agency has a duty to comply with the request in principle, and furthermore, if the requester requests the disclosure of non-electronic form in an electronic form even, the disclosure of information may be made by converting it into an electronic form according to discretionary judgment. This is intended to promote the efficient utilization of information and enhance the convenience of the claimant, thereby ensuring the citizen's right to know, which is the object of the Information Disclosure Act. Thus, the claimant has the legal right to

Therefore, the disclosure of the information subject to the request for disclosure by the public agency shall be made, but if the decision is made by the method other than the disclosure method requested by the claimant, it shall be deemed that the part of the request for disclosure of information is a rejection disposition, and the claimant shall be able to appeal against it.

3. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment partially admitted by the lower court, the lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) while the Plaintiff was working in the vehicle management department in Namyang-si, the Plaintiff claimed disclosure of the information in its holding, such as the disbursement resolution, evidentiary documents (credit card copies, etc.) and the archives management ledger, through an information and communications network in the form of an information and communications network in the form of an electronic file; and (b) the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the instant case that the Plaintiff would visit the vehicle management department

Considering the purpose of the right to request the disclosure of information under the Information Disclosure Act, human resources and expenses of public institutions consumed by the information disclosure, etc., the court below determined that the public institution is unlawful on the ground that the applicant for the right to request the disclosure of information is sufficient to disclose the information in a way that allows access to the information subject to disclosure and there is no obligation to disclose the information at all times according to the method requested by the applicant for the right to request the disclosure of information. The notification of this case is made in a way that the plaintiff can access the information of this case and thus, it cannot be viewed as a rejection

However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the instant notice does not take a method of transmitting the information disclosure method applied by the Plaintiff via an information and communications network in the form of an information disclosure method, but directly visit and receive or peruse it. Thus, it should be deemed as an administrative disposition that refuses part of the Plaintiff’s request for information disclosure

Therefore, the lower court should have determined the validity of the Plaintiff’s claim by examining the following: (a) there is any information held and managed in electronic form among the information the Plaintiff requested to disclose, and whether the provision of such information in electronic form is considerably difficult due to the nature of the information or is likely to substantially impede the Defendant’

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the instant lawsuit by deeming that the instant notification is not a rejection disposition. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)