In a case where a civic organization requested the Mayor to disclose information on accounting books, documents evidencing expenditure, etc. related to various business promotion expenses, and decided not to disclose administrative information, the case holding that the disclosure cannot be denied on the grounds that the remaining part, except for the part containing personal information, does not constitute non-disclosure

In a case where a civic organization requested the Mayor to disclose information on accounting books, documents evidencing expenditure, etc. related to various business promotion expenses and decided to disclose administrative information, the case holding that the disclosure cannot be refused on the grounds that the rest of the part, except the part including information on participants in the event hosted by the Mayor and individuals identified by the money recipient, does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act.

Article 9(1)6, 7, 13(2), and 14 of the Official Information Disclosure Act;

Plaintiff (Law Firm Affiliated, Attorneys Kim Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Kim So-young, Counsel for defendant)

February 25, 2009

1. The defendant's refusal to disclose information on January 2, 2008 to the plaintiff is revoked, except for the refusal to disclose information listed in the separate sheet No. 2 as to the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 as to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Five minutes of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's refusal to disclose information to the plaintiff on January 2, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 7, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a request for the disclosure of information by means of a copy or an output delivery with respect to the information listed in the attached list No. 1 (hereinafter “instant information”) with the Defendant, as a non-governmental organization that is punished for residents’ participation in local autonomy.

B. On January 2, 2008, the Defendant rendered a decision not to disclose administrative information (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the volume of information subject to disclosure is likely to seriously impede the normal performance of duties due to excessive volume of information subject to disclosure (hereinafter “instant grounds for disposition 1”), and there is a mixture of information subject to non-disclosure and information subject to disclosure (hereinafter “instant grounds for disposition 2”).”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The reason why the excessive amount of information subject to disclosure requests may seriously obstruct the normal performance of duties does not constitute grounds for refusing disclosure as prescribed by Article 9(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Act”), and the reason that it is impossible to distinguish information subject to non-disclosure and information subject to disclosure is mixed with information and thus, it is also possible for the Plaintiff to disclose information except the personal resident registration number, business operator registration number, corporation, organization, and individual identification number, and to make a copy and deliver it to the public. Accordingly, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that in addition to the above disposition grounds, the plaintiff's request for information disclosure of this case should be dismissed.

Although the information of this case is excluded from resident registration numbers, business registration numbers, and account numbers of individuals, etc., however, if the information of this case is disclosed, business promotion expenses are likely to seriously harm legitimate interests of corporations, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition 3 disposition grounds”) in light of the fact that personal information of participants of events or recipients of money and valuables is exposed to the personal information of participants of various events, persons who are not interested in the event, and persons who attend the event or receive money and valuables, and are used to smoothly implement major projects with related agencies, etc.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Markets:

(1) Determination on the grounds for the instant 1 disposition

The reason why the excessive amount of information subject to disclosure is likely to seriously impede the normal performance of duties does not constitute a reason for not disclosing the information prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 9(1) of the Act. However, it is only a case where a copy or reproduction of information can be delivered in installments for a certain period or in parallel with perusal pursuant to Article 13(2) of the Act. Thus, the disclosure of information itself cannot be refused.

(2) Determination on the grounds for the instant 2 disposition

Article 14 of the Act provides that, in a case where the information requested for disclosure contains the part falling under the information subject to non-disclosure and the part that can be disclosed, if two parts can be separated within the scope that does not go against the purport of the request for disclosure, the part that constitutes the information subject to non-disclosure and the part that can be disclosed can be separated within the scope that does not go against the purport of the request for disclosure, shall not be deemed to mean the case where the two parts can be physically separated, but it shall be interpreted that, in light of the method and procedure for disclosure of the relevant information, the information does not mean the case where the information is excluded or deleted from the technology related to the information subject to non-disclosure and it is possible to disclose only the remaining information, and only the other part of the information is worth disclosure (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1270

In this case, even if there is information subject to non-disclosure on the instant information, it is possible to disclose only the part that can be disclosed except for the information subject to non-disclosure by deleting, copying, or printing out the information, and the remaining part of the information alone is worth disclosure. Thus, the disclosure of the entire information of this case cannot be refused based on the grounds for disposition 2 of this case.

(3) Determination on the grounds for the instant disposition 3

(A) Whether the information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Act

Article 9(1)6 of the Act provides that "information pertaining to individuals, such as names, resident registration numbers, etc. included in the relevant information, which, if disclosed, is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals," and proviso (c) of the same Article provides that "information that is prepared or acquired by a public institution and deemed necessary for the public interest or the protection of rights of individuals" shall be excluded. Here, whether disclosure constitutes "information that is deemed necessary for the public interest" should be determined on an individual basis by comparing and comparing the interests of individuals protected by non-disclosure, such as the protection of privacy, etc., of the people's right to know, public interest such as the guarantee of citizen's right to know, citizen's participation in state affairs, and securing transparency in state administration (Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8302 Decided August 20, 2004, etc.).

Considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 2-2, No. 2-3, No. 7-1, No. 7-2, No. 9-1 through No. 4, No. 10-1, No. 11-5, and No. 12, the agency operation expenses are appropriated in accordance with the above provisions in the standard amount of the local government budget compilation expenses, and are executed in accordance with the above provisions in light of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 10-1 through No. 4, No. 11-5, No. 12, No. 12, and No. 12, No. 2, No. 2-2, No. 2-2, No. 2-2, No. 7-2, No. 7, No. 2-2, No. 7, and No. 2-2.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 9-1 through 4, No. 10-1 through 4, No. 10-1 through No. 11-5, and No. 12, the information of this case includes the information about an individual who can identify the participants of the event including various events held by the defendant's various event-related disbursement resolution and disbursement documents, etc., as well as the information about individuals who can identify the recipients of money and valuables, which are included in the defendant's case, encouragement and consolation, etc., and the disbursement resolution and disbursement documents of money and valuables provided by the defendant. If a public official attends the event or receives money and valuables in relation to his personal identification information, the information is deemed necessary for the public interest because the attendance of the event or the receipt of money and valuables are interchangeed with public affairs. However, if a private person or public official participates in the above exercise or receives money and valuables from the defendant without relation to his duties, the information of this case can not be disclosed from the point of view that it is more efficient and protected by law.

(B) Whether the information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Act

Article 9(1)7 of the Act provides, “Information subject to non-disclosure” as one of the information “information pertaining to business secrets of corporations, organizations, or individuals, which, if disclosed, is likely to seriously undermine the legitimate interests of the corporations, etc...” The information pertaining to the trade name, organization name, business name, etc. of the corporations, etc. where an individual operating the corporations, organizations, or business offices receives money, such as encouragement money, from the Defendant, etc., the information pertaining to the trade name, organization name, business name, etc. of the corporations, etc., if disclosed, is difficult,

(C) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to disclose to the Plaintiff the remainder of the instant information, excluding the information listed in attached Form 2, which constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under the Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the remaining part of the disposition of this case, excluding the rejection of disclosure of information in the attached Table 2 list, which constitutes information subject to non-disclosure among the dispositions of this case, shall be revoked. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It

Judges lower-class (Presiding Judge)