(영문) 대법원 2014.12.24. 선고 2014두9349 판결

1. The right to know, in particular, the right to access information held and managed by public institutions, is recognized in relation to the freedom of expression, which is a fundamental right under our Constitution, and the content of such right includes the right to request disclosure of information held and managed by any public institution.

Article 3 of the former Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions (amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) provides for the principle of information disclosure that information held and managed by public institutions should be disclosed in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Article 5(1) provides that all citizens shall have the right to request information disclosure, and Article 6 provides for the contents of the right to request information disclosure and the procedure for its exercise, such as the application of this Act to ensure that the people’s right to request information can be respected, and the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be amended to ensure that the people’s right to request information disclosure can be respected.

Considering the meaning and nature of the general right to use the information disclosure name, the content and legislative purpose of the Information Disclosure Act, and the fact that the Information Disclosure Act does not impose any restrictions on the purpose of using the information or on the grounds for accessing the information in connection with the exercise of the right to use the information, a citizen’s claim for information disclosure should be widely permitted in principle unless it does not constitute the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act, but in fact, it is reasonable to allow the citizen to exercise the right to use the information disclosure right where it is evident that it constitutes abuse of the right, such as where it is intended to obtain or utilize the relevant information without any intention to acquire or utilize it, or where

2. A. The record reveals the following facts.

(1) The Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for more than three years and six months, and repeatedly filed a variety of claims against various state agencies for disclosure of information over several times, and filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information at each court across the country (hereinafter referred to as “litigation seeking revocation of information”).

(2) In multiple cases, the administrative agency decided to disclose or partially disclose the Plaintiff’s information disclosure claim, but the Plaintiff did not receive the relevant information.

(3) The Plaintiff appointed a specific attorney as an attorney in a lawsuit claiming the disclosure of information, including the original judgment in this case. However, the Plaintiff’s attorney in the original instance only stated that he/she was present at the date of pleading that he/she sought a judgment of dismissal on the date of pleading, and did not do any act of pleading, such as submission of preparatory documents or documentary evidence. In an interview with the staff of the correctional institution, the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that he/she would distribute the attorney’s fees when he/she was paid the attorney’s fees after winning

(4) The Plaintiff appeared in court at least 90 times throughout the country to be present at the oral argument in the information disclosure title lawsuit, and the Plaintiff did not pay the cost of attendance in the court accordingly.

(5) The Plaintiff stated to the effect that “A request for disclosure of information and a lawsuit seeking disclosure of information, in consultation with the staff of the correctional institution, in progress, was not for remedy of infringement of rights, and that “a request for disclosure of information and a lawsuit seeking disclosure of information was an act of blining administrative power of the national institution, so that such act

B. According to these circumstances, the plaintiff did not claim the information disclosure to the defendant for access to the information of this case, but rather, if the claim is rejected, the plaintiff won the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the rejection disposition and gets monetary benefits by receiving a larger amount of the litigation costs than the actual litigation costs incurred in the lawsuit, or claimed the information disclosure for the purpose of evading forced labor by attending the court on the date of pleading during the number of days, and according to the above legal principles, such claim for information disclosure shall not be allowed as an abuse of the right.

C. Nevertheless, the court below did not examine whether the request for information disclosure of this case constitutes an abuse of right, and held that part of the disposition of this case which rejected the plaintiff's request for information disclosure of this case was unlawful on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. This decision is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to abuse of right of the request for information

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.