[1] Whether a document in which a person liable for registration under the Public Service Ethics Act submitted pursuant to Article 12 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Service Ethics Act (attached Form 14) falls under the relationship with the person himself/herself, his/her name, reason for refusing to give notice of property registration, and signature or seal, and whether a document in which “the person liable for registration under the Public Service Ethics Act” is written constitutes a legal non-information under Article 7(1)1 of the former Public Service Ethics Act (negative)

[2] The method of determining whether disclosure constitutes “information deemed necessary for the public interest” under the proviso of Article 7(1)6(c) of the former Official Information Disclosure Act

[3] Whether the personal information of a person liable for registration under the Public Service Ethics Act, which is included in the documents submitted to the Government Public Service Ethics Committee pursuant to Article 12 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Service Ethics Act (attached Form 14), constitutes "information deemed necessary for the public interest to be disclosed" under Article 7 (1) 6 (c) of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (negative)

[1] In full view of the provisions of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004) and the former Public Service Ethics Act (amended by Act No. 6816 of Mar. 12, 2003), the remainder of the registered matters except for the registered matters to be disclosed under Article 10(1) and (2) of the former Public Service Ethics Act constitutes non-information under Article 10(3) or 14 of the same Act (amended by Act No. 10(3) or 14 of the same Act. However, considering the contents of the above provisions and the purpose, legislative purport of the Public Service Ethics Act, where a person liable for registration and his spouse and lineal ascendants or descendants refuse to notify their property registration (where a lineal ascendant or descendant refuses to comply with property registration, such information shall be deemed to correspond to the registered matters under the former Public Service Ethics Act, and thus, it does not constitute the grounds for refusing to notify and refuse to notify the person liable for registration under Article 10(3) of the former Public Service Ethics Act.

[2] Article 7(1)6 of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004) provides that one of the information subject to non-disclosure refers to "personal information that can identify a specific person by using the name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information." Article 7(1)6 of the same Act provides that "information prepared or acquired by a public institution and disclosed to the public is excluded from "information deemed necessary for the public interest or for the protection of an individual's rights." Here, whether disclosure constitutes "information deemed necessary for the public interest" should be determined carefully in accordance with specific matters by comparing and comparing the interests of an individual, such as the protection of privacy, and public interest, such as securing transparency in state administration protected by the disclosure.

[3] Personal information of a person liable for registration under Article 12 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Service Ethics Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 303 of Nov. 16, 2005) (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 303 of Nov. 16, 2005) which is included in the documents of the public service ethics committee is personal identification information. Information on the documents is not registered under the former Public Service Ethics Act (amended by Act No. 6816 of Mar. 12, 2003) but is merely information acquired by the public service ethics committee to examine whether there is a reason for refusal of notification under Article 12 (4) of the same Act to disclose personal information of the person rejecting notification and securing fairness in the performance of duties of a public official who is the legislative purpose of the Public Service Ethics Act. On the other hand, if disclosed personal information of the person refusing notification, it is more likely to seriously infringe personal rights or privacy of the person refusing notification, and it cannot be determined that it is necessary to be disclosed information protected by public interest.

[1] Article 7(1)1 of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004) (see current Article 9(1)1); Articles 3(1), 4, 10, 12(4), and 14 of the former Public Service Ethics Act (amended by Act No. 6816 of Mar. 12, 2003); Article 2(1) and 12 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Service Ethics Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20099 of Jun. 21, 2007); Article 7(1)1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Service Ethics Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 303 of Nov. 16, 2005); Article 7(2) of the former Public Service Ethics Act / [2] Article 9(1)6(c) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Public Service Ethics Act (amended by Act No. 97165 of Jan. 27, 207 of the current Public Service Ethics Act)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Du6425 decided Mar. 11, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 997) Supreme Court Decision 2005Du241 decided Dec. 7, 2006 (Gong2007Sang, 146)

Participatory Association (Law Firm Dongseo, Attorneys Park Jong-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Government Public Service Ethics Committee

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu4951 Delivered on September 14, 2005

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the name and signature of the lineal ascendants and descendants refusing to notify shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court. The defendant's remaining appeal shall be dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to whether the instant information constitutes statutory and non-information (legal non-information)

A. The lower court determined that: (a) between the time when the Plaintiff’s disclosure of property on the attached list of Grade 1 and Grade 35 public officials in the lower judgment seeking disclosure from the time of disclosure of property to February 2002, Article 12(4) of the former Public Service Ethics Act (amended by Act No. 6816, Mar. 12, 2003; hereinafter the same shall apply); (b) Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Service Ethics Act; and Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Service Ethics Act (hereinafter “person refusing notification”) submitted to the Defendant under the provision of Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Service Ethics Act (attached Form 14); (c) the information pertaining to each document (hereinafter “information of this case”) under Article 12 of the former Public Service Ethics Act (amended by Act No. 7127, Jan. 29, 2004; hereinafter “Non-Public Service Ethics Act”) does not constitute “information under Article 10(1) or non-Public Service Ethics Act”).

B. Article 3 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "Any person who is engaged or has engaged in the affairs of property registration or who has become aware of matters concerning property registration in the course of performing his duties shall disclose them to the public pursuant to the provisions of this Act." Article 7 (1) 1 provides that "information that shall be kept confidential by other Acts or orders issued under the Acts and subordinate statutes or shall not be disclosed to the public." Meanwhile, Article 10 (3) of the Public Service Ethics Act provides that "no person shall inspect or copy the registered matters concerning the property of the person liable for registration or allow another person to do so without permission from the head of the public service ethics committee or the registration agency, except in the case falling under paragraphs (1) and (2)." Article 27 provides that "no person who is engaged or has been engaged in the affairs of property registration or who has become aware of matters concerning property registration in the course of performing his duties shall disclose them to another person," and Article 14 provides that "no person who is engaged in the affairs of property registration or who has become aware of matters to the public pursuant to Article 10 (2)" and penal provisions concerning property registration.

C. Article 3(1) of the Public Service Ethics Act provides that "if a person liable for registration wishes to register his/her property under the conditions as prescribed by this Act, his/her spouse, his/her spouse, lineal ascendants or descendants, or other property shall be registered with the property; Article 4(1) provides that the person liable for registration shall register with the property; Article 4(2) and (3) provides that the kind of property to be registered and the method of calculating the value thereof may be denied; Article 12(4) provides that the person other than his/her dependent among lineal ascendants or descendants of the person liable for registration may refuse to notify his/her property registration; the scope of such notification may include not only his/her spouse's property but also his/her lineal ascendants or descendants who are not his/her dependent; the public service ethics committee provides that the person liable for registration may refuse to register his/her property; it shall have the public service ethics committee established under Article 9 of the Public Service Ethics Act (Article 8) to examine his/her name or descendant's refusal to register with the person liable for registration;

D. Therefore, the instant information is not a registered matter under the Public Service Ethics Act, and it does not constitute any information that is prohibited or prohibited from being perused or divulged pursuant to the provisions of Articles 10(3) and 14 of the Public Service Ethics Act, and further does not constitute any information that does not constitute statutory non-information under Article 7(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act.

Ultimately, the decision of the court below that the information of this case does not fall under the non-legal information under Article 7 (1) 1 of the Information Disclosure Act is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of Article 7 (1) 1 of the Information Disclosure Act or Article 10 (1) and (3) of the Public Service Ethics Act, which affected the conclusion of

2. As to whether to disclose the instant information

A. As to the ground for refusing to give notice among the instant information

As seen earlier, the instant information does not constitute non-disclosure information under Article 7(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act. Of the instant information, the grounds for refusing to notify does not constitute other information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7(1) of the Information Disclosure Act. Thus, the grounds for refusing to notify among the instant information are information to be disclosed under the Information Disclosure Act.

Therefore, the theory of the original adjudication that deemed the ground for refusal of notification among the information of this case as the information to be disclosed under the Information Disclosure Act is justifiable, and there is no error of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. As to the name, signature, and seal of the person who refused to give notice among the instant information

Article 7(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act provides, one of the information subject to non-disclosure, “personally identifiable information by name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information” (hereinafter “personal personally identifiable information”), and Article 7(1)6 of the same Act provides that “the disclosure of the information prepared or acquired by a public institution to the public is excluded from “information deemed necessary for the public interest or for the protection of an individual’s rights.” Here, whether the disclosure of information constitutes “information deemed necessary for the public interest” should be determined carefully by comparing and comparing the interests of an individual protected by the non-disclosure with those of public interest, such as securing transparency in the management of state affairs, which are protected by the disclosure of the private information, with regard to the public interest protected by the disclosure of the private information (see Supreme Court Decisions 201Du6425, Mar. 11, 2003; 2005Du241, Dec. 7, 2006, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the name, signature, and seal (hereinafter “personal information of the person refusing notification”) included in the instant information constitutes personal identification information. As seen earlier, the instant information is not registered under the Public Service Ethics Act, but is merely acquired by the public service ethics committee to examine whether there exist grounds for refusing notification under Article 12(4) of the Public Service Ethics Act to the person refusing notification. The disclosure of personal information of the person refusing notification and securing the fairness of the public official’s integrity and performance of duties, which are the legislative purpose of the Public Service Ethics Act, are nothing more than indirectly related to each other. However, if the personal information of the person refusing notification is disclosed, it is likely to seriously infringe on the personal right or privacy of the person refusing notification, and in light of the status of the person refusing notification, the purport of the system rejecting notification, etc., it cannot be concluded that the personal information of the person refusing notification would be more protected by the disclosure than the interest of the person refusing notification, and thus, it does not constitute information deemed necessary for the public interest.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the personal information of the person who refused to notify information of this case constitutes information deemed necessary to be disclosed for the public interest. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) 6 of the Information Disclosure Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the personal information of the person who refused to notify the information of this case shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the defendant's remaining appeal shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)