2013Guhap56829 Revocation of Disposition of Non-Disclosure of Information

A

Minister of Security and Public Administration

November 29, 2013

February 11, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

After the establishment of the Government of the Republic of Korea in 1948 against the Plaintiff on June 20, 2013, the Defendant revoked the decision to disclose information non-disclosure on the name, post, reason, and type of decoration by the Government of the Republic of Korea from June 10, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Korean Broadcasting System Report Headquarters B analyzed the subjects of decoration and packaging for the past period, and tried to produce a program to track and report who received government rewards as a son’s day, and who did not have any improper decoration.

B. On June 13, 2013, the Plaintiff, as a reporter belonging to the Korea Broadcasting System Report Headquarters B, requested the Defendant to disclose the name, affiliation, reason, and category of decoration (hereinafter “instant information”) of the person who was awarded a decoration by the Government of the Republic of Korea after the establishment of the Government of the Republic of Korea in June 13, 2013.

C. On June 20, 2013, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for disclosure on the grounds that the information requested by the Plaintiff constitutes an individual, which could infringe on an individual’s privacy or freedom of privacy if disclosed, constitutes a subject of non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”). ② The details of the issuance of a decoration before November 5, 2011, which took effect under Article 8-2 of the Awards and Decorations Act, which provides for the publication of a decoration, falls under a subject of non-disclosure, and ③ the use or provision to a third party for any purpose other than the purpose of receiving personal information without the consent of the subject of information pursuant to Articles 17 and 19 of the Personal Information Protection Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. Meanwhile, a decoration awarded by the year 2012 after the founding of Korea is a total of 678,422 cases.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) The Plaintiff’s claim for disclosure of the instant information is to verify the public nature and transparency, etc. of the granting of the decoration by analyzing the details of the granting of the decoration, to verify the public nature and transparency, to satisfy the people’s right to know about the granting of the decoration by informing the citizens, and to strengthen the citizen’s surveillance and control over the granting of the decoration, and the public interest due to the disclosure of the instant information is larger than that of the individual’s privacy, etc. protected by the non-disclosure. Thus, the instant information is deemed to be the information subject to disclosure because it constitutes a case where disclosing the information prepared by a public institution under Article 9(

(2) Article 8-2 of the Awards and Decorations Act is established in order to establish the status of a national decoration and enhance transparency in selection and honor of a person subject to a decoration, and was newly established in order to publish the relevant decoration in the Official Gazette, and the relevant person’s name and reason was not disclosed due to the amendment under the foregoing provision. Thus, the details of granting a decoration before November 5, 201, which became effective under Article 8-2 of the Awards and Decorations Act, cannot be deemed as information subject to non-disclosure.

(3) The instant information is not personal information that is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of private life, but it is necessary for the public interest. Thus, the disclosure of the instant information does not conflict with the Personal Information Protection Act.

B. Relevant statutes

former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013)

Article 9 (Information Subject to Non-Disclosure) (1) Any information held and managed by public institutions shall be subject to disclosure: Provided, That the following information may not be disclosed:

6. Personal information, such as name and resident registration number included in the relevant information, which, if disclosed, is deemed likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of an individual: Provided, That the following personal information shall be excluded:

(a) Information which is available for inspection as prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes;

(b) Information prepared or acquired by a public institution for the purpose of publication, which does not unfairly infringe on the privacy and freedom of individuals;

(c) Information prepared or acquired by a public institution, which is deemed necessary to protect the public interest or individual rights;

(d) Name and position of public officials who perform the duties;

(e) Name and occupation of an individual who has been partially entrusted or commissioned by the State or a local government under Acts and subordinate statutes as necessary for the public interest;

C. Determination

(1) Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "information pertaining to an individual, such as name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information, which, if disclosed, is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of an individual." Article 9(1)6 of the same Act provides that "information prepared or acquired by a public institution is excluded from "information deemed necessary for the public interest or for the relief of an individual's rights." Here, whether disclosure constitutes "information deemed necessary for the public interest" should be determined carefully on specific issues by comparing and comparing the interests of an individual protected by the non-disclosure with those of the public interest, such as securing transparency in the administration of state affairs protected by the disclosure, and securing transparency in the administration of state affairs protected by the disclosure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du13117, Dec. 13, 2007). In addition, in light of the fact that Article 9(1)6(c) proviso of the Information Disclosure Act takes the form of "except for the disclosure, etc., where disclosure or disclosure of the relevant information is likely to infringe on the privacy.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the instant information constitutes a non-disclosure subject to the main sentence of Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act, which could infringe upon an individual’s privacy or freedom if it is combined. Meanwhile, even if the instant information is disclosed and based on this, the Korean Broadcasting System has strengthened citizen’s surveillance and control over the granting of a decoration by producing a program related to the granting of a decoration, it is insufficient to recognize it only by the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff as to the fact that the public interest protected by the disclosure of the instant information is considerably larger than that of the party’s privacy or freedom, etc., which is infringed upon by the disclosure of the instant information. Accordingly, the instant information does not fall under the information subject to disclosure under Article 9(1)6(c) of the Information Disclosure Act, and the Plaintiff’s first assertion is without merit.

(3) Therefore, the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure, and the instant disposition that rejected the Plaintiff’s request for disclosure of information without having to look at the Plaintiff’s second and third arguments is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the highest judge;

Judges Park Jong-il

Judge No. Doingk