logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.05.26 2016구합81130
정보공개거부처분취소
Text

1. On November 22, 2016, the Defendant’s information stated in the attached Table 1 list against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of the information listed in the [Attachment 1] List of Information subject to Attachment 1 (hereinafter “instant information”).

B. On November 22, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of a non-disclosure decision on the grounds that the information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)1 and 4 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) and Article 37 of the Regulations on External Audit and Accounting, Etc., and that the information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) and includes many of the contents of Article 9(1)7 of the same Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

Meanwhile, on March 5, 2012, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt by the Gwangju District Court 2012Hahap1 on March 5, 2012. At present, B et al. filed a lawsuit seeking compensation against the Defendant, etc. under Seoul Central District Court 2014Da532182 regarding the violation of the accounting standards of mutual savings banks and the accounting corporation’s fault audit thereof. The Plaintiff is a legal representative, such as B et al.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant disposition

A. The key point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the instant information does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)1, 4, and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act and Article 9 of the External Audit Act; and (b) the instant disposition is unlawful.

(1) Article 9 of the External Audit Act alone cannot be deemed to constitute “information prescribed as confidential or confidential by other Acts” under Article 9 (1) 1 of the Information Disclosure Act.

(2) Issues.

arrow