(영문) 춘천지방법원 2009.8.20.선고 2009구합476 판결

1. The Defendant’s decision to disclose information to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties listed in the separate sheet on March 4, 2009 is revoked.

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

Purport of claim

The order is as set forth in the text.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff (designated party) and the designated parties listed in the attached list (hereinafter "the plaintiff et al.") are as follows: pursuant to Article 2 of the former Act on the Provisional Measures for the Improvement of the Residential Environments of Low-Income Urban Residents (amended by Act No. 6841 of Dec. 30, 2002, Act No. 6852 of Dec. 30, 2002), the defendant constructed apartment houses with a size of 1-2, 45,803 square meters in the Hanju-si-si-si, pursuant to Article 2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 6841 of Dec. 30, 200

30. On January 8, 2009, the buyers who were specially supplied for border relocation measures requested the Defendant to disclose the information in the attached list related to the computation of the selling price (hereinafter referred to as the “information in this case”).

B. On March 4, 2009, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting disclosure of the instant information to the Plaintiff, etc. on the ground that “the instant information overlaps with the civil action, etc. against the Defendant and thus it is necessary to promote the economy of the lawsuit.”

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff alleged by the party (1) (hereinafter "the plaintiff"): The information of this case is the basic material to determine the propriety of the supply price of housing for the substantial guarantee of the right to sell preferentially, and it does not constitute the information subject to non-disclosure under each subparagraph of Article 9 (1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter "Information Disclosure Act"), but the disposition of this case refusing to disclose it is unlawful. (2) The defendant et al. claimed disclosure of the information of this case for the purpose of obtaining evidentiary materials for other civil cases in progress with the defendant, and this can achieve its purpose through the method of issuing an order to submit documents, etc. in the civil procedure in question. Thus, the defendant does not need to disclose the information of this case in the economy of the lawsuit.

B. Relevant statutes

The provisions of the attached Table shall be as specified in the statutes.

C. Determination

(1) As to the fact that the public institution is in possession and management of the pertinent information that seeks information disclosure, the burden of proof exists to the person who seeks information disclosure, but the degree of proof is sufficient (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du20587, Jun. 1, 2007). (2) Articles 1, 3, and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act provide that the public institution shall, in principle, disclose the information held and managed by the public institution to all citizens in order to guarantee the people's right to know and to ensure transparency in state affairs, and thus, the public institution requested the disclosure of the information held and managed by the public is not required to disclose it unless it falls under the grounds for non-disclosure provided for in each subparagraph of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, and it is sufficient to prove that there is a considerable probability that such information is held and managed by the public institution (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du20587, Jun. 1, 200).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.