2017Gaun314 Apartment management data storage, preservation, and reproduction

A

B apartment council of occupants' representatives

October 27, 2017

November 24, 2017

1. The defendant shall allow the plaintiff to copy each document recorded in the list of requests for duplication (attached Form 1) managed by the defendant.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 1/2 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The defendant shall preserve and preserve each of the documents specified in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition (hereinafter referred to as "each of the documents of this case") managed by the defendant, and allow reproduction to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the tenant of the B apartment 1311 in Bupyeong-si, the defendant is the managing body of the apartment that consists of the representatives elected by the residents of the above apartment.

B. The Plaintiff served as the president of the Defendant from January 2007 to March 2009. On May 22, 2009, the Defendant brought a lawsuit claiming return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff on the ground that the amount received by the Plaintiff concurrently held as the president of the management office and constituted unjust enrichment. On October 28, 2009, the Plaintiff appealed upon a dismissal ruling rendered on October 28, 2009, but the appeal was dismissed on July 16, 2010, but the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time (this Court Decision 2009Da16539, Incheon District Court 2009Na21379).

C. After being released from the office of the president of the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed several civil lawsuits against the Defendant and the president of the Defendant, etc., and the details thereof are as follows (B).

A person shall be appointed.

D. After May 23, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to duplicate relevant documents, such as fees for the appointment of an attorney-at-law, fees, receipts, etc. regarding the previous lawsuit, etc., and the Defendant made a decision on August 8, 2016 that the reproduction is not permitted pursuant to Article 26(2)2 (Article 26(2) of the B Apartment Management Rules (hereinafter “Management Rules”) that prescribes the restriction on duplication at regular meetings (hereinafter “Management Rules”) and Article 3 (Article 26(2)3 (Article 26(2).

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against “B apartment management office” on October 17, 2016, to preserve and preserve documents managed by the management office, and to make copies of the following documents (this court 2016Gahap1327), but was sentenced to dismissal on April 5, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on the 26th of the same month.

1. List of documents requested to be copied; 2. The meeting minutes of the apartment autonomous council from March to December 2010, 209 to March 2012, 3. The details of the meal expenses and the meeting meal expenses of the apartment autonomous council from March to June 2009; 4. the details of the cost of appointing attorneys from January to June 2010; 5. the details of the cost of appointing attorneys-at-law from January to February 2010 from January 2010 to February 5. 2013 to November 2017, the 6. the 2013 List of Officers of the apartment autonomous council from November 2016 to November 2016, disregarding the former president’s reappointment restriction (total 4 years) as advisers; and the legal grounds for selecting the general secretary as the chairperson (laws).

F. On April 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant [to preserve and preserve the following documents managed by the Defendant management office, and to allow duplication].

In the list 1, the meeting minutes of the apartment autonomous council from March to December 2010 from March 2009 to December 2012, 2010, the details of the meal expenses and the meeting meal expenses of the apartment autonomous council meetings from March 2009 to June 3, 2009; 4. The service fees of the lawsuit from May to June 2009 and the recognition fees of the number of attorneys from May to February 5, 2010; 6. The details of the delivery fees of the lawsuit from January to February 2010 and the recognition fees of the number of attorneys from February 2017, the representative meeting list of the representative directors of the representative meeting from March 2014 to December 2014.

G. At a regular meeting on June 2, 2017, the Defendant decided not to allow reproduction on the ground that the Plaintiff’s request for reproduction of the Defendant’s executive list is likely to leak personal information.

H. On September 13, 2017, the Plaintiff directly visited the Defendant’s management office to peruse documents and made a joint visit to the documents.

(i) In accordance with the order of this court to specify the list of documents requested for duplication, the Plaintiff submitted a preparatory document to modify the list of copies requested (attached Form 1) on September 14, 2017 as stated in the list, and stated the above document on September 29, 201.

(j) Meanwhile, the multi-family housing management law concerning the application for access to and reproduction of information of the occupants and users of multi-family housing, the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the B apartment management rules are as stated in attached Form 2.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 8, 14, 15, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, 11, and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant shall preserve and keep each of the documents of this case pursuant to Article 38 (1) 3, 4, and 7 of the Management Rules, and allow duplication to the plaintiff. The defendant shall deliver copies of the documents that meet the requirements for permission of duplication under the Management Rules without asking the use or purpose of duplication, and each of the documents of this case does not constitute grounds for restriction of duplication.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The Plaintiff was dismissed from office as the Defendant’s president for eight years prior to the date of dismissal from office, and there was a dispute between the Defendant’s side and the previous litigation, etc. However, the Plaintiff was only required to submit the previous litigation materials, etc., and even if the Defendant allowed perusal, the Plaintiff added the documents requested for reproduction and detained. Each of the documents of this case constitutes subject to restriction on perusal as prescribed by Article 26(2) proviso 2 and 3 of the Management Rules, and the Plaintiff only filed the instant claim for the purpose of coercing the Defendant’s side.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the request for preservation and storage

Article 38 of the Management Rules lists the types of data kept and managed by the managing body of multi-family housing under paragraph (1), and Paragraph (2) provides that residents, etc. may request the managing body to peruse or duplicate the above data if they meet certain requirements, and does not grant the managing body the right to request the preservation and preservation of the data. Other evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff has the legal basis for requesting the preservation and preservation of each of the documents of this case to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff

B. Determination as to the claim for duplication

1) Determination as to the cause of claim

Article 38(1) of the Management Rules provides, as data kept and managed by the management entity, the minutes of the council of occupants' representatives (Article 38(1) of the Management Rules, the current status of imposing and collecting management expenses and user fees, the financial documents related thereto (Article 4), and various contracts (Article 7). Paragraph (2) of the Management Rules provides that occupants, etc. may request reproduction of each of the above documents at their own expense to the extent that they do not interfere with the management entity's business, and the management entity shall also comply with the request unless they fall under the case of "the corporation, the estimated price of service contracts (Article 26(2)1), the personal information, and the personal information expected to be falsified (Article 26(2)2), "the part concerning personal information (Article 26(2)3)," "the part concerning the personal information prepared or being

According to the above relevant provisions and the facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, an occupant of an apartment, has the right to request the Defendant, who is the managing body of the apartment, to duplicate the minutes of the council of occupants' representatives, disbursement resolution, details of withdrawal, facility contract, etc., and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to allow the Plaintiff to copy each document in accordance with Article 38(1)3 of the Management Rules (attached Form 1) No. 1-13, each document listed in [Attachment 1] No. 14-20, each document listed in the same list No. 14-20, and each document listed in No. 21 of the same list No. 7, pursuant to Article 38(1)4 of the Management Rules (On the other hand, it is reasonable to interpret that the Defendant’s non-permission decision on August 8, 2016 and the non-permission decision made on June 2, 2017, regardless of the validity of each of the above resolutions).

2) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A) First, as to the assertion that each of the documents of this case constitutes grounds for restriction on duplication under the proviso of Article 26(2) of the Management Rules, since it is difficult to view that there exist personal information, such as personal information or defamation, etc., in the relevant documents as meeting minutes of the council of occupants' representatives, disbursement resolution, withdrawal details, and elevator contract, it cannot be deemed that the document of this case constitutes grounds for restriction under Article 26(2)2 of the Management Rules, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that each of the documents of this case contains the contents on the agenda in preparation or proceeding, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes grounds for restriction under Article 26(2)

B) Next, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s demand for duplication for the purpose of bullying. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s demand for duplication of the documents related to the previous lawsuit from around May 2009 to around 2011 was delayed since then, from around May 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B apartment management office, and the judgment of rejection became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with almost the same contents. While the Plaintiff visited the Defendant’s management office during the proceeding of the instant lawsuit to peruse the documents and then changed the purport of the Plaintiff’s request for duplication on the following day, it is not clear that the Plaintiff’s right to demand duplication of each of the documents can not be acknowledged for the Plaintiff’s use or abuse of its right, in light of the following circumstances known by the above facts and regulations, and (1) the Plaintiff’s right to demand reproduction of each of the documents can only be acknowledged for the Plaintiff’s use or abuse of right, and thus, it cannot be seen that there is no possibility that the Plaintiff’s demand for reproduction of new documents or abuse of rights.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the whole judge

Judges Kim Gun-chul

Judges Park Sang-hoon

1) Considering the meaning and nature of the general right to request information disclosure, the content and legislative purpose of the Information Disclosure Act, and the fact that the Information Disclosure Act does not impose any limitation on the purpose of using information or on the grounds for accessing information in relation to the exercise of the right to request information disclosure, a citizen’s claim for information disclosure should be widely permitted as a matter of principle, unless it falls under information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act. However, in fact, where it is evident that a citizen’s claim for information disclosure constitutes abuse of the right, such as where he/she intends to obtain unjust benefits which are not acceptable under social norms by using the information disclosure system without the intent to acquire or utilize the pertinent information at all, or where it is evident that the case constitutes abuse of the right, such as where he/she makes a request for information disclosure for

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.