(영문) 대법원 2017.3.15.선고 2014두7305 판결

1. Article 4(1) of the former Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions (amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) provides that “Any disclosure of information shall be governed by the provisions of this Act, except as otherwise provided for in other Acts.” In order to exclude the application of Information Disclosure Act on disclosure of information, such special provision shall be “legal provisions,” and its contents shall be different from the Information Disclosure Act on the subject and scope of the disclosure of information, procedures for the disclosure of information, and information subject to non-disclosure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du2555, Jun. 1, 2007); Article 59-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that any disclosure of information under Article 28(1)2 of the Information Disclosure Act, unlike other Acts, shall be prohibited (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du25581, Jun. 1, 2007).

2. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveal the following facts.

A. On September 24, 2011, the Plaintiff was injured by a passenger car driven by B on September 24, 2011, and the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the police upon the escape of B, and the Defendant alleged that B was driving by Dong C, who was the birth, and that C was the suspect.

On October 1, 2011, B was examined by the police as the Plaintiff and the replacement of the Plaintiff. After that, B reversed the statement that he was driving, and was examined by the police on January 3, 2012 and January 16, 2012. B thereafter, B was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million due to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the criminal facts of the attempted offender, and the summary order became final and conclusive around that time. On December 18, 2012, B asserted that it is necessary for the Plaintiff to file a civil lawsuit against B and C, and the Defendant filed a request for the suspect examination of suspect interrogation of each of the instant cases under Article 10(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, which became final and conclusive pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as “Information Disclosure Protocol”).

D. However, on December 24, 2012, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that each of the instant interrogation records constituted non-disclosure information under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act to the Plaintiff.

3. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, if each of the suspect interrogation records of this case constitutes the litigation records of the case for which a summary order became final and conclusive, the request for disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act is not allowed, and thus, the disposition of this case refusing the request for disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act by the Plaintiff is justifiable.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the part of the instant disposition was unlawful on the ground that the disclosure of the records in the criminal trial case, on the premise that the Information Disclosure Act can be applied to the disclosure of the records in the criminal trial, on the ground that the part of the instant disposition, excluding B, C’s occupation, place of registration, and contact details, does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act and should

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the scope of application of the Information Disclosure Act and the legal doctrine on disclosure of the records of confirmation of a criminal trial, etc., and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to whether each of the interrogation records of the instant case constitutes the final and conclusive records of each of the interrogation records of the instant case, and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, the part rejecting disclosure

4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.