[1] The burden of proving that public institutions possess and manage the pertinent information under the former Information Disclosure Act, and the degree of proof

[2] The case holding that the information on the calculation details of the apartment sale price of the Korea National Housing Corporation does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) 7 of the former Official Information Disclosure Act on the ground that such disclosure could not be deemed to significantly undermine the legitimate interests of the above Corporation

[1] Article 8 (1) (see current Article 10 (1)) of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004) / [2] Article 7 (1) 7 (see current Article 9 (1) 7) of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Du12854 Delivered on January 28, 2005

Plaintiff (Law Firm Name, Attorney Park Ho-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea National Housing Corporation (Law Firm Dogsan, Attorneys Park Gi-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu17319 delivered on November 22, 2006

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In light of the fact that the information disclosure system under the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004; hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) is a system that discloses information held and managed by a public institution in its state, a person who seeks information disclosure shall bear the burden of proving that the relevant information is held and managed by a public institution. However, it is sufficient to prove that the degree of proof is highly probable that the public institution retains and manages such information (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du12854, Jan. 28, 2005).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in the judgment after compiling the adopted evidence, and determined that there is a considerable probability that the defendant retains and manages the information of this case, which was arranged by item of the sales cost calculation.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. According to Article 2 subparag. 1 and Article 3 of the Information Disclosure Act, information created and managed by a public institution in the course of performing its duties should be disclosed in accordance with the Information Disclosure Act. Since it is clear that the information in this case is that the defendant prepared and managed in relation to the duties of housing construction project and sale in lots, it constitutes information subject to the Information Disclosure Act.

Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal that there is no room to apply the Information Disclosure Act as it is related to the business conducted by the defendant as the subject of the private economy.

B. In light of the legislative purpose and purport of the Information Disclosure Act to guarantee the right to know of the people and secure the participation of the people in government affairs and the transparency of government administration, it is necessary to strictly interpret the information held and managed by the public institution as an exception to information disclosure. It is necessary to strictly interpret it as an exception to information disclosure. The defendant is a corporation established under the Korea National Housing Corporation Act for the purpose of contributing to the stabilization of people's lives and the promotion of public welfare by constructing, supplying and managing the housing and improving the defective housing, and has special status and authority different from that of the general company for the implementation of such purpose. The defendant has already completed the sale in order to disclose the data on the apartment purchase price calculation of the housing complex in the main residential complex in the Goyangyang-dong, Goyangyang-dong, Goyang-dong, where the sale in lots has already been completed, and it cannot be concluded that the competitiveness of the company is significantly deteriorating, or that it is difficult to promote the housing construction project and the sale in lots. Furthermore, the defendant's disclosure of the above information satisfies the right to know by allowing the public to participate in the housing policy and its operation.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the information of this case does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Information Disclosure Act, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and misapprehension of legal principles as to information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Information Disclosure

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)