[1] Whether meeting-related data provided in the decision-making process or minutes recorded in the decision-making process constitutes information subject to non-disclosure, which corresponds to "matters in the process of decision-making" under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (affirmative)

[2] The meaning of "where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure of information under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act may seriously obstruct the fair performance of business," and the standard for determining whether the disclosure constitutes such cases

[3] The case holding that information on the person's personal information about the contents of remarks recorded in the minutes of the School Environmental Sanitation and Cleanup Committee's resolution on the cancellation of prohibited acts within the school environmental sanitation district constitutes a non-disclosure object under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act

[1] Examining the legislative intent of information subject to non-disclosure under the Official Information Disclosure Act, “matters in the process of audit, supervision, inspection, test, regulation, tendering contract, technology development, personnel management, decision-making, or internal review” under Article 7(1)5 of the same Act shall be deemed to have been listed as an example of information subject to non-disclosure. Thus, the meeting-related data provided in the decision-making process or minutes, etc. recorded in the process of decision-making process shall not be deemed to be the matters in the decision-making process, but may be included in the information subject to non-disclosure as matters corresponding to the matters in the decision-

[2] In light of the purpose of the information disclosure system under Article 1 of the Information Disclosure Act and the legislative purport of the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) 5 of the same Act, "where there is a considerable reason to believe that the fair performance of duties would substantially interfere with the fair performance of duties when disclosed" under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Information Disclosure Act means the case where there is a high probability that fair performance of duties would interfere with the fair performance of duties objectively and remarkably. Whether it constitutes such a case shall be determined carefully according to specific matters by comparing and comparing the interests such as fairness of duties protected by non-disclosure and the interests such as guaranteeing citizens' right to know, guaranteeing citizens' participation in government affairs, securing transparency in government affairs, etc.

[3] The case holding that the information on the personal details of the relevant speaker's remarks stated in the minutes of the School Environmental Sanitation and Cleanup Committee's resolution on the cancellation of prohibited acts within the school environmental sanitation district constitutes a non-disclosure object under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act

[1] Article 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act / [2] Articles 1 and 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act / [3] Articles 5 and 6 of the School Health Act, Articles 3, 4, 4-2, and 4-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the School Health Act, Articles 1 and 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Du85 delivered on May 30, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 1547) Supreme Court Decision 2001Du4702 Delivered on May 16, 2003 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2000Du6114 Delivered on March 14, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 103)

Plaintiff 1 and 10 others (Attorney So-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of the Gyeonggi-do High Education Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu10846 delivered on November 21, 2002

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In light of the legislative purport of information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Act”), “matters in the process of audit, supervision, inspection, test, regulation, tendering contracts, technology development, personnel management, decision-making, or internal review, etc.” under Article 7(1)5 of the Act, and “matters in the process of audit, supervision, examination, examination, regulation, tendering contracts, technology development, personnel management, decision-making, or internal review, etc.” under Article 7(1)5 of the Act shall be deemed as the examples of information subject to non-disclosure. Thus, if a decision-making process or intent is decided or executed, any more matters in the process of decision-making or minutes on which a decision-making process is recorded shall not be deemed as the matters in itself, but may be included in the information subject to non-disclosure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do85, May 30, 200; 200Du4716, May 16, 2003).

The court below determined that the minutes of the school environmental sanitation cleanup committee (hereinafter referred to as the "sanct committee") under the defendant's jurisdiction on the decision of cancellation of prohibited acts within the school environmental sanitation sanitation district of its holding are records after the completion of the procedures of the committee's deliberation committee, and they are not the "matters in the process of decision-making" under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Act, but the matters corresponding thereto.

In light of records, relevant statutes and the above legal principles, we affirm the judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 7 (1) 5 of the Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In light of the purpose of the information disclosure system under Article 1 of the Act and the legislative intent of the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Act, "where there is a considerable reason to recognize that the fair performance of duties would substantially interfere with the fair performance of duties" in the disclosure of information under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Act means the case where there is a high probability that the fair performance of duties would objectively and significantly interfere with the fair performance of duties if disclosed. Whether the disclosure of information constitutes such a high probability should be determined carefully according to specific cases by comparing and comparing the interests protected by non-disclosure such as fairness of duties and the interests protected by disclosure such as guaranteeing citizens' right to know, guaranteeing citizens' participation in state affairs, and securing transparency in state affairs

The court below held that, in order to ensure a free and active deliberation by the council of the Cleanup Committee, the need to thoroughly guarantee that the public should not be disclosed to the public with respect to who takes part in the deliberation process even after the completion of the council's deliberation. In other words, if the personal information of the relevant speaker is disclosed in addition to the contents of the minutes of the Cleanup Committee, the purification committee's psychological pressure on the public disclosure of the contents of the minutes, and thus, the purification committee's or the present members are unable to take a lead and free exchange of opinions in the above purification committee's deliberation procedure, and even if the parties or external members are unlikely to agree with their own opinions or have a consistent concern about the public disclosure of the contents of the minutes, the court below held that there is a considerable reason to recognize that the personal information of the relevant speaker on the contents of the minutes should not be disclosed to the outside other than the contents of the minutes in order to promote the loyalty and internal deliberation by the purification committee.

In light of records, relevant statutes and the above legal principles, we affirm the judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to considerable reasons that can be recognized as significantly impeding the fair performance of deliberation by the Cleanup Committee, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)