logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2019.12.20 2019누3118
행정정보공개거부처분취소
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 reasons why this Court cited the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows. ① A list of the judgment of the court of first instance and the "attached statutes" are replaced by “attached Form 1 list” and “attached Form 2-related Acts and subordinate statutes” of this judgment. ② In addition to adding the following judgments as to the allegations emphasized or newly raised by the defendant in this court, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The portion added by this court

A. The instant information alleged by the Defendant constitutes information subject to non-disclosure as provided by Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act, on the grounds that, if disclosed, considerable grounds exist to make it considerably difficult for investigative agencies to perform their duties.

Therefore, the instant disposition, which rejected the copying of the instant information, is lawful.

B. Determination 1) Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that “information pertaining to an investigation, which, if disclosed, has considerable grounds to believe that it would significantly impede the performance of duties thereof.” The purport of this Act is to prevent disclosure of methods, procedures, etc. for investigation from causing significant difficulties to the investigation agency’s performance of duties.” As such, written opinions, reporting documents, mail, legal review, internal investigation records, etc. in investigation records (hereinafter “written opinions, etc.”).

) Although it can be said that it falls under this, (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Order 94Hun-Ma60, Nov. 27, 1997; Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1342, Dec. 26, 2003; and (b) the information subject to the request for disclosure corresponds to a written opinion, etc., and immediately does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act, but it is considerably difficult for an investigative agency to perform its duties by disclosing the methods and procedures of the investigation by examining the substantive contents of written opinions, etc.

arrow