The judgment below

The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act provides for “personal information, such as name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information, which, if disclosed, could infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals” as one of the information subject to non-disclosure, and proviso (c) of the same Article provides for “information prepared or acquired by a public institution, which is deemed necessary for the public interest or for the relief of an individual’s rights.”

Here, whether disclosure constitutes “information that is deemed necessary for the public interest” ought to be carefully determined in accordance with a specific case by comparing and comparing public interests, such as securing transparency in the management of state affairs protected by disclosure, with the privacy of individuals protected by non-disclosure, etc.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below on October 29, 2009 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du14224, Oct. 29, 2009). The court of first instance and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below are as follows: (a) the date of detention or the date of entry is recorded as before September 28, 1950 or after February 1, 1951 (including any information that does not contain any date of detention or the date of entry) other than the one mentioned in the list (excluding the specific lot number) of prisoners in the Daejeon-type prison from 1950 to 1951, "the information of this case".

It is reasonable to view that disclosing “the disclosure” is more likely to contribute to guaranteeing citizens’ right to know and ensuring the transparency of state power agencies than to the extent of infringement against private interests, such as protecting individuals’ privacy. Therefore, the part concerning the instant information in the instant disposition as indicated in the lower judgment was unlawful.

However, it can be known by the record.