Whether a certified public accountant's second answer form constitutes information under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (affirmative), and whether a certified public accountant's second answer form constitutes a reason for non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) 5 of the same Act to increase the number of business operations due to perusal of the answer form and to raise the number of applicants' complaints about fairness in marking (negative)

The answer prepared by certified public accountant in the second examination of the Director General of the Securities Supervisory Board, which is a public institution, is clear that the applicant falls under the information prescribed in Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, and therefore, the applicant may request a perusal of the above answer sheet unless there are special circumstances. However, Article 7 (1) 5 of the same Act provides that the public institution may not disclose the information that has considerable reasons to recognize that if disclosed through a test, etc., the fair performance of duties or research and development may significantly interfere with the fair performance of duties or research and development. However, the majority of applicants for the examination is not expected to demand a perusal of the answer sheet as mentioned above, and it is not expected that the number of applicants for the examination will increase the amount of duties of the Director General of the Securities Supervisory Board due to domestic affairs, or there is an objection against the applicants for the fairness of the rating, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above circumstance alone constitutes a ground for non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) 5 of the same Act.

Articles 6 and 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Trein stone

Director General of Securities Supervisory Board

1. On October 10, 1998, the defendant's revocation of the 33th certified public accountant's refusal to peruse the answer sheet against the plaintiff on October 10, 1998.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

It is recognized that the following facts are established in full view of the whole purport of the pleading in Gap evidence No. 1.

A. On July 2, 1998 and the 3th day of the same month, the Plaintiff applied for the second 33rd certified public accountants examination executed by the Defendant over the two days, but was subject to a disposition of failure on September 10 of the same year, and requested the Defendant to peruse the answer sheet prepared by him on October 2 of the same year for the purpose of reference in preparation for the following:

B. On October 10, 1998, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s above request for inspection on the ground that data relating to the examination is not disclosed to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 7(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case rejecting the plaintiff's above request for perusal is legitimate, since the defendant is a majority of applicants for the above certified public accountant examination, and all of them are allowed to peruse the answer sheet due to the wide range of business and grading costs when they are allowed to inspect the answer sheet.

B. The right to know in the modern society is a content of the right to request public agencies to disclose information under the Constitution that can be requested by the general public to disclose information under the management and possession of the public agencies. The active right to information is the basic right to claim the Constitution directly based on the Constitution, which is the principle of national sovereignty that all information acquired and held by the public agencies is a citizen and should be disclosed to the public in principle (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 88Hun-Ma22, Sept. 4, 1989; Supreme Court Order 90Hun-Ma133, May 13, 191; Supreme Court Order 88Nu9312, Oct. 24, 1989; Supreme Court Order 88Nu9312, Oct. 24, 1989). Accordingly, the right to request public agencies to disclose information is clearly prepared or acquired in the course of performing their duties, and the plaintiff's answer to the above provision that is a public institution's legally prepared document, drawing, photograph, film, tape, tape, tape, and computer.

C. However, Article 7 (1) 5 of the above Act provides that the public agency may choose not to disclose the information which has considerable reasons to recognize that the disclosure of the examination, etc. causes a significant obstacle to the fair performance of duties or research and development of the business, and therefore, in this case, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful on the ground that the majority of the applicants for the examination, as to whether the above reasons for non-disclosure exist, is not expected to make a request for access to the above answer sheet, but it cannot be deemed that the applicant's request for access to the answer sheet is a legal ground for refusing the applicant's request on the ground that the applicant's request for access to the answer sheet increases the defendant's duty amount due to domestic affairs, or there is an objection against the fairness of marking. Thus, the above circumstance of the defendant's assertion cannot be deemed to constitute a non-disclosure ground under Article 7 (1) 5 of the above Act. On the contrary, the plaintiff's perusal of the answer sheet of this case does not have any other evidence that it may interfere with the fair performance or research and development

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case on the ground of the above recognition is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Judge Kim Jong-il (Presiding Judge) Ad hoc