(영문) 대전지방법원 2021.1.7. 선고 2019구합108649 판결

1. On October 8, 2019, the Defendant’s refusal to disclose information on the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2019, with the exception of non-disclosure information listed in the separate sheet No. 2, revoked

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Purport of claim

The defendant's refusal to disclose information on October 8, 2019 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. A summary of the disposition. On September 6, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant for disclosure of the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant report”) to the Defendant. However, on October 8, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting all of the Plaintiff’s claims on the grounds of non-disclosure on the following grounds: (a) the prevention of and investigation into crimes under Article 9 subparag. 4 of the Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Information Disclosure Act”); (b) matters concerning the audit and supervision of public institutions; (c) matters concerning individuals under subparagraph 6, which are deemed likely to infringe on privacy or freedom; and (d) matters concerning corporations under subparagraph 7, which are likely to infringe on legitimate interests of corporations, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Each of the instant reports is a document that investigates the actual state of the case where some counselors of the agencies in charge of job placement such as the National Local Government Job Centers (hereinafter referred to as "employment support agencies") without permission for job seeker's personal information, and reports the result and the plan of measures to the job seeker's personal information (hereinafter referred to as "the instant misconduct act"), and the public interest to be disclosed for the purpose of confirmation, remedy, prevention of recurrence, etc. of overall damage is substantial, and it does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (4) through (7) of the Information Disclosure Act as follows.

1) Each report of this case is not the content of individual and specific case investigation, but the content of numericalized statistics by classifying the misconduct of this case by region and agency, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a risk of affecting the examination or trial result of the pending trial (related to subparagraph 4).

2) Each of the instant reports is a document, the internal decision of which has already been completed, and a considerable time has already elapsed from the time of production, and a report on the established facts and plans was mainly made on the facts and plans, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a concern that the fair performance of duties may not be impeded even if disclosed (related

3) An employee of the employment assistance agency shall disclose his/her name and position in accordance with the proviso to subparagraph 6 (d) of Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act, since he/she was not a public official but performed his/her duties corresponding to a public official (related

4) Even if each of the instant reports contains information on private corporations, such information constitutes information that needs to be disclosed to protect the people’s property or life from illegal and unfair business activities, and thus, it should be disclosed pursuant to Article 9 subparag. 7 (b) proviso of the Information Disclosure Act (related to subparagraph 7).

B. Even if each of the instant reports included information subject to non-disclosure, the Defendant should not disclose only the relevant part and disclose the remainder.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Table 3 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. According to the result that the court received each of the reports of this case from the defendant and perused and examined them in private, each of the reports of this case consists of the main text and attached documents, and the specific contents are as follows.

1) The main text of the report of this case contains the following: (a) the investigation period in each stage of investigation, the number of persons subject to investigation, the number of persons subject to inspection, the number of persons subject to inspection, the number of persons subject to inspection, the number of persons subject to inspection, the number of persons subject to inspection, and other persons to be attached; (b) the name, date of birth, gender, the name of each person subject to investigation, the number of persons subject to investigation, the number of applications for employment, the number of applications for employment, and the number of contact details of each person subject to investigation; (3) the name of each person subject to investigation, the last agency, the affiliated agency, the present agency, the number of applications for employment, the number of applications for employment, and the list of requests for approval excluded from employment, under the title of "the list of list of persons subject to investigation," which includes the name of each person subject to investigation, the number of applications for employment, the number of applications

2) The main text of the instant report contains the following: (a) the number of persons engaged in the fact-finding survey completed around March 2018 on or around the basis of the investigating authority’s collection of the results pertaining to the instant misconduct; and (b) the part (5-8 pages) stating the names, dates of birth, gender, the names of agencies to which they belong, address, number of job-seeking deletions, number of false employment records, and the number of non-acceptances (whether or not there is any refusal to comply with the investigation) by the investigating authority.

3) The main text of the report of this case No. 3 states that "the report must be made, as shown in the application for job seeking by the deceased, the results of the investigation by the employment processing person, and the plan of measures (the plan)". The attached documents consist of ① the background of the commencement of the investigation, ② the outline of the investigation, ③ the results of the investigation, ④ the implications of the investigation,

B. Whether each of the instant reports constitutes grounds for non-disclosure

1) Whether it falls under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "information pertaining to an investigation, which, if disclosed, has a reasonable ground to believe that it would significantly impede the performance of duties if disclosed, shall be one of the information subject to non-disclosure." The purport of this Act is to prevent the disclosure of methods, procedures, etc. for investigation from causing significant difficulties in performing duties of an investigative agency. The investigation records are the same

Although a person’s written opinion, report document, penology, legal review, internal investigation data, etc. (hereinafter “written opinion, etc.”) falls under this, the person’s information subject to disclosure request does not immediately constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act, but merely constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 of the same Act if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure of the method, procedure, etc. of investigation is considerably difficult to perform his/her duties by taking into account the substantive contents of written opinion, etc. In this context, “information with considerable grounds to recognize that disclosure is considerably difficult to perform his/her duties” refers to a case where the disclosure of the relevant information is highly likely to obstruct the fair and efficient performance of duties related to investigation, etc., and the degree of such disclosure is obvious. Whether the information falls under this should be determined carefully in accordance with specific cases by comparing and comparing the interests of the public, such as the fairness in the performance of duties protected by non-disclosure, the interests of securing citizens’ right to know, and the transparency of investigation procedures (see, etc.).

B) Determination

The report of this case Nos. 1 and 2 contains not only abstract statisticalized values but also personal information of individual persons subject to investigation and the details and frequency of specific misconduct based on the result of the fact-finding survey conducted by the defendant on the violation of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information. The report of this case No. 3 included a summary of the results of the investigation on the violation of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information, and the defendant accused some persons subject to investigation into the violation of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information and tried to initiate the investigation procedure accordingly.

However, the content of each report of this case, separate from whether the defendant is liable for the misconduct of this case, is merely a mere fact-finding fact-finding fact-finding data and a plan to take measures against them. It is difficult to view that it constitutes a matter of investigation under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act, and if disclosed, the method and procedure of investigation, etc. are disclosed or there is a risk of considerable difficulty in carrying out an investigation agency’s duties. Therefore, it is difficult to view that each report of this case contains part of the contents of the misconduct in which the criminal responsibility is likely to be established and the criminal procedure is actually carried out. In this regard, it is difficult to view that it constitutes a non-disclosure information under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act.

2) Whether it falls under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act

A) Relevant legal principles

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 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, “information that has considerable grounds to recognize that the fair performance of duties would substantially interfere with the fair performance of duties” refers to a case where there is high probability that the fair performance of duties would substantially interfere with the objective of the disclosure of information. Whether the information constitutes such a case ought to be carefully determined by comparing and comparing the interests protected by non-disclosure such as fairness in the performance of duties and the interests protected by disclosure, such as guaranteeing the people’s right to know, guaranteeing the people’s participation in state affairs, and securing transparency in state affairs, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Du69892, Sept. 28, 2018).

Meanwhile, “matters in the process of inspection, test regulation, bidding guidance, personnel management, decision-making process, or internal review” under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act shall be deemed to have been listed as examples of information subject to non-disclosure. Thus, materials, etc. provided in the decision-making process may no longer be deemed as matters in the decision-making process if the decision-making process is decided or executed, but may be included in the information subject to non-disclosure as matters corresponding to the matters in the decision-making process (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du12946, Aug. 22, 2003; 2014Du4356, Feb. 26, 2015).

B) Determination

In addition to the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence No. 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to view the part of each of the instant reports as information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, and the remainder of the report is not information that does not correspond to such information.

(1) Of each of the instant reports, the part as listed in attached Form 2(1) is the result of the Defendant’s fact-finding survey.

On the basis of the type of offense and degree of misconduct, persons subject to investigation and employment assistance organizations include the contents of the measures differently determined and the specific criteria. This is not considered as information itself in the process of decision-making or examination, but corresponding information is likely to seriously obstruct the defendant's fair performance of duties due to the decline of the defendant's free discretion to establish and determine appropriate measures for the wrongful act investigated by the supervisory agency if disclosed.

(2) On the other hand, the remainder of the report of this case, except for the part as indicated in attached Form 2(1), cannot be readily concluded that the disclosure of this case’s report is likely to hinder the Defendant’s fair performance of duties by itself. Moreover, since the counseling company employed by the employment support agency was engaged in the unlawful use of the personal information acquired in the course of performing its duties, it is directly and closely related to the infringement of the rights of the majority of the citizens who provided the personal information to the employment support agency, and the employment performance of the employment support agency is used as basic materials for state administration, and thus, it is necessary to secure fairness and transparency in its operation. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the benefits

3) Whether it falls under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act

A) Relevant legal principles

Information subject to non-disclosure pursuant to the main sentence of Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act includes not only "personal identification information that determines whether the information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure based on the name, resident registration number, etc., but also "information that is likely to cause harm to personal and mental life or make it impossible to freely engage in private life by examining the details of the information in detail." Meanwhile, Article 9(1)6 proviso (c) of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "information prepared or acquired by a public institution is excluded from information subject to non-disclosure, which is deemed necessary for protecting personal rights or rights of individuals." Here, whether the "information" falls under information that is deemed necessary for protecting personal rights should be determined carefully in accordance with specific cases by comparing and comparing the interests of individuals such as privacy protected by non-disclosure and the interests of protecting personal rights, etc. protected by disclosure (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Du23611, Jun. 18, 2012).

B) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts recognized and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to view the part of each of the instant reports as information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act, excluding this, as information that does not correspond to the information.

(1) In each of the instant reports, the part as stated in attached Table 2(2) is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of an individual if disclosed as personal information about a private person, while it does not seem necessary to disclose such information for the public interest or for the relief of rights of an individual. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the above information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the name or position of the person subject to investigation included in each of the instant reports is a person who performs the relevant duties corresponding to a public official under Article 9(1)6(d) of the Information Disclosure Act and does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure. However, there is no ground to believe that the person subject to investigation was engaged in the relevant duties corresponding to a public official, and even if so, the name and position should be disclosed by analogy applying the proviso of Article 9(1)6(d

(2) However, the remaining part of the report of this case except for the part in the attached Form 2 Paragraph (2) shall be considered as follows: (i) the act of this case committed by the person subject to the investigation in order to disclose his work performance in the course of performing the employment assistance work, and it is hard to view it as a matter of private sphere; and (ii) the information disclosed only to the public, if the remaining information except the personal information of the person subject to the investigation is disclosed, it is difficult to deem that the disclosure of the information could easily lead to an act of misconduct or crime committed by the person subject to the investigation; and (iii) even if such concern exists, it is more likely that the disclosure would infringe on the privacy or freedom of an individual; and (iv)

4) Whether it falls under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act

A) Relevant legal principles

The purpose of the Information Disclosure Act is to guarantee citizens’ right to know and secure citizens’ participation in state affairs and transparency in the management of state affairs by providing for matters necessary for the citizen’s request for disclosure of information held and managed by public institutions and for the duty of disclosure of public institutions. However, in order to protect legitimate interests by preventing the divulgence of confidential information about business activities of corporations, etc., the Information Disclosure Act provides that “information that is deemed likely to seriously undermine legitimate interests of corporations, etc. if disclosed as business secrets or business secrets of corporations, organizations, or individuals” as prescribed by Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act shall be subject to non-disclosure. Considering the legislative purpose of the Information Disclosure Act, “business secrets of corporations, etc.” as prescribed by Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act refers to all information on business activities that are favorable to the disclosure of others, or all confidential information on business activities that are held and managed by public institutions.” In light of the purpose of Article 9(1)2 of the Information Disclosure Act and the purpose of Article 20(1)7(2) of the Information Disclosure Act, etc.

B) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the purport of the aforementioned facts recognized and the entire pleadings, each of the instant reports cannot be deemed information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

(1) Since each of the instant reports is a fact-finding survey on the actual state of the instant misconduct, it is difficult to deem that the instant reports contain the management and trade secrets of the employment assistance agency’s business activities entrusted and operated by a private corporation.

(2) In light of the above facts, the Defendant pointed out that the same case of the instant misconduct was widely presumed to have been committed by 'the wrong business attitude leading to the acts of misconduct' through the above news report materials, and it is difficult to conclude that the instant misconduct is merely an act of deviation from an individual unrelated to the employment assistance agency at all, in full view of the fact that the counselors belonging to each employment assistance agency are responsible for the management and supervision of the unlawful acts of the employees belonging to each employment assistance agency, and each of the employment assistance agencies also had the benefit of getting unfair results due to the instant misconduct. Therefore, even if each of the reports of this case was not disclosed, it is difficult to view that the benefits of the instant misconduct are justifiable, and that such benefits are able to be protected, such as guaranteeing citizens' right to know and securing transparency in national administration.

(3) The Defendant’s report of this case contains statistics of each agency which simply combines the suspicion with the fact of violation of law. Thus, if disclosed, it is likely that the disclosure would cause inconvenience to the employment assistance agency entrusted and operated by many private corporations and make it difficult for the Defendant to perform its duties properly. However, since the content of each report of this case is merely simply by investigating and compiling the actual state of each type of violation, it does not necessarily mean that the content of each report of this case must be identical to criminal liability for each wrongful act. Rather, the Defendant’s disclosure of the results of the investigation stated in each report of this case, thereby guaranteeing citizens’ right to know, and enhancing citizens’ trust in the fairness of the work of each employment assistance agency.

C. Scope of revocation

1) As a result of a court’s review on whether a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information by an administrative agency was unlawful, the part that constitutes grounds for non-disclosure is mixed with the part that rejected the disclosure of information, and where it can be recognized that two parts can be separated within the extent that does not contravene the purport of the request for disclosure, the court may order partial revocation of such information. In such a case where partial disclosure of information is permitted, the court may exclude or delete technologies, etc. related to the information subject to non-disclosure in light of the method and procedure for disclosure of the information, and only disclose the remaining information, and may disclose the information only with the remaining parts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du12785, Dec. 10, 2009

2) Although there exist grounds for non-disclosure in the report of each of the instant cases, there exists grounds for non-disclosure, the remainder does not constitute non-disclosure information under Article 9(1)4 through 7 of the Information Disclosure Act, and it is possible to disclose only the remainder of the report of each of the instant cases, excluding the non-disclosure information specified in attached Table 2, and the remainder of the report of each of the instant cases is worth disclosure. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable to the extent that the Plaintiff seeks separate disclosure of the remainder except the non

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.