logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.11.11 2016구합60034
정보공개거부처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 11, 2016, the Plaintiff, who is in office as the president, requested the Defendant to disclose each petitioner and content of the case (hereinafter “instant information”) against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant information”).

B. Accordingly, on January 18, 2016, the Defendant rejected the disclosure of the instant information pursuant to Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) on the ground that “the disclosure of the information is likely to cause disadvantages to the petitioner, if disclosed, and may infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals when disclosing the information including an individual’s subjective opinion.”

(hereinafter referred to as "the Disposition in this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the part on “the content” of the instant information does not constitute information that is likely to infringe on an individual’s privacy or freedom, and the petitioner has seriously damaged the Plaintiff’s reputation by disclosing the content of the petition to the press. As such, the Plaintiff’s right to remedy rather than the interests of the petitioner’s privacy protected by non-disclosure of the instant information

Therefore, the instant information should be disclosed in accordance with the proviso of Article 9(1)6 (c) of the Information Disclosure Act, and the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. In light of the legislative history, content, and purport of the Information Disclosure Act as to whether the instant information constitutes information that is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of an individual if disclosed, the information subject to non-disclosure pursuant to the main sentence of Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act is included in the information that is protected by the Constitution.

arrow