[1] The meaning of and the standard for determining "where disclosure has a reasonable ground to believe that disclosure would substantially obstruct the fair performance of duties" under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act

[2] In a case where Gap filed a request for disclosure of information about Eul's mother's long-term care rating table on data related to Gap's mother's long-term care rating table, but the National Health Insurance Corporation did not have the originals written by means other than electronic documents, the case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the ground that it is reasonable to regard the investigation table as a document prepared and managed by the National Health Insurance Corporation in relation to its duties, and that it does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure on the ground that there is no need

[3] In a case where Gap filed a request for disclosure of information on the meeting minutes of the Long-Term Care Rating Committee, etc. of his/her mother's mother, but the National Health Insurance Corporation's all of the data related to the grading constitutes "the case where there is a reasonable ground to believe that disclosure would substantially interfere with the fair performance of duties if disclosed" under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, the case affirming the judgment below holding that the non-disclosure disposition is not unlawful on the ground that the meeting minutes are recorded in the decision-making process and are likely to substantially interfere with the fair performance of the Committee's deliberation duties if disclosed

[1] Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act / [2] Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act / [3] Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Du12946 decided Aug. 22, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1958) Supreme Court Decision 2010Du2913 decided Jun. 10, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1378)

Plaintiff

National Health Insurance Corporation (Attorney Kim Han-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2009Nu2626 decided June 17, 2010

The part of the judgment of the court below on the examination table for approval for long-term care is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. The remaining appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the records, on April 26, 2010, the Plaintiff stated that the documents subject to the instant request for disclosure during the date for preparatory pleading of the lower court on April 26, 2010, stating that “the documents subject to the instant request for disclosure are limited to “the documents prepared during the period, the documents submitted by the Defendant to the Need Assessment Committee other than the medical examination table and the medical examination statement, and the minutes for the determination of the long-term care grade” and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion in the grounds of appeal that the lower

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) provides that “information” means documents (including electronic documents; hereinafter the same shall apply), drawings, photographs, films, tapes, slidess, and other matters recorded in other media corresponding thereto that are prepared or acquired and managed by a public institution in the course of performing its duties,” and Article 3 provides that “Any information held and managed by a public institution shall be disclosed as prescribed by this Act,” and Article 5(1) provides that “All citizens shall have the right to request disclosure of information,” and Article 9(1)5 provides that “information under the process of audit, supervision, inspection, test, regulation, tendering contracts, technology development, personnel management, decision-making, or internal review, etc., which, if disclosed, has considerable grounds to believe that the fair performance of duties or the development of research and development of such information would be significantly impeded.”

Meanwhile, in light of the purpose of the information disclosure system under Article 1 of the Information Disclosure Act and the legislative intent of the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, "where there is a considerable reason to recognize that the fair performance of duties would substantially interfere with the fair performance of duties if disclosed" under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act means the case where there is a high probability that fair performance of duties would be objectively and significantly interfere with the fair performance of duties if disclosed. Whether the case falls under this case shall be determined carefully according to specific cases by comparing and comparing the interests protected by the non-disclosure such as fairness in the performance of duties, etc. and the interests protected by the disclosure such as guaranteeing the people's right to know, securing the people's participation in government affairs, and securing the transparency of government administration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du12946, Aug. 22, 2003; 2010Du2913, Jun. 10, 2010).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the disposition of non-disclosure of the investigation sheet was unlawful on the ground that, in light of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, it is not necessary for the Defendant’s investigator to separately disclose the investigation sheet for long-term care (hereinafter “the investigation sheet for long-term care”) prepared by him/her to visit and investigate the Nonparty, the Plaintiff’s mother, in addition to the investigation sheet for long-term care, which

However, the following circumstances, including the above provisions and legal principles of the Information Disclosure Act, i.e., the Defendant’s investigator did not directly prepare the investigation report for approval for long-term care, which is an electronic document, but rather prepared the investigation report for approval for long-term care based on the report. According to the information disclosure that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on December 16, 2009, the period of storage of the investigation report for long-term care is one year, three years, and three years, and the examination report for long-term care is kept in the file of each individual (see, e.g., records). Thus, it is reasonable to view that the investigation report for long-term care was a document prepared and managed by the Defendant in relation to his/her duties. However, even if there is room to view the matters recorded in the investigation report for long-term care as corresponding to the “matters in the process of decision-making” under Article 1(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, if disclosed, there is no need to disclose such information merely because there is no need to be information subject to non-disclosure.

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the disposition of non-disclosure of the investigation table was unlawful solely on the ground that there is no need to disclose the investigation table. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the subject of information disclosure and the grounds for non-disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on this point is with merit.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that a disposition of non-disclosure of meeting minutes was unlawful on the grounds that the meeting minutes of the long-term care grading committee constitute a matter of decision-making process and constitutes a matter of decision-making process and, if disclosed, there is considerable reason to recognize that the meeting minutes of the long-term care grading committee constitute a matter of decision-making process and constitutes a matter of decision-making process, and that it significantly impedes the fair performance of the deliberation affairs of the long-term care grading committee.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of application under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Information Disclosure Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the examination table of the completion of the examination is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)