Plaintiff

South Ocean Market

October 13, 2015

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The part of the Defendant’s refusal disposition of disclosure of information against the Plaintiff on July 10, 2013, excluding each information listed in attached Table 1, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 2, 2004, the Plaintiff is an inorganic contract worker employed as an illegal parking and stopping supervisor at the Namyang-si, who has been in office in the Motor Vehicle Management Department (Gu Transport Management Department) at the time of Yangyang-si.

B. On June 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of the following information (hereinafter “instant information”) via an information and communications network in the form of an electronic file.

1. The Table contained in the main sentence of this case - Department: Automobile management and 2.

C. On July 10, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the Plaintiff was an employee of the Motor Vehicle Management Department and its affiliated employee, and that the Plaintiff directly visited the motor vehicle management department and the office of Yangyang-si and received the instant information (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on December 20, 2013, and the decision was served on the Plaintiff on January 7, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

With respect to the plaintiff's claim for disclosure of the information of this case by transmitting the information of this case to the information communication network in the form of electromagnetic wave, the defendant visited the plaintiff to the automobile management department and the office of Namyang-si to receive the information of this case directly. The disposition of this case is in fact a refusal disposition against the plaintiff's request for disclosure of information of this case and there is no legal basis for the refusal disposition

2) The defendant's assertion

Since the instant disposition is the content of disclosing information pursuant to the Plaintiff’s request for disclosure of information, there is no rejection disposition against the Plaintiff’s claim for disclosure of information. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is not subject to this disposition, and therefore, there is no benefit

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Table 2 is as stated in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

1) The citizens’ right to know and, in particular, the right to access information held and managed by a public institution is recognized as related to the freedom of expression, which is the fundamental right under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, and the content of such right includes the so-called general right to request disclosure of information held and managed by any public institution. Article 3 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) provides for the principle of disclosure that information held and managed by a public institution should be disclosed in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Article 5(1) provides for the principle of disclosure of information that information held and managed by a public institution should be disclosed, all citizens have the right to request disclosure of information, and Article 6 provides for the contents of the general right to request disclosure of information and the procedures for its exercise, such as the implementation of this Act and the provisions of the public institution’s duties to

2) Considering the meaning and nature of the right to request information disclosure as above, the provisions 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 request information disclosure, a citizen’s claim for information disclosure should be widely permitted unless it falls under the information subject to non-disclosure as prescribed by Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act. However, considering the purpose of the right to request information disclosure and the human resources and expenses of the public institutions consumed by the information disclosure, etc., the public institution is sufficient to disclose the information in such a way that the person who has the right to request information disclosure can access the information, and at all times, it cannot be deemed that the information should be disclosed in such a way that the person who has the right to request information disclosure can always access the information subject to disclosure

3) As to the instant case, Article 14(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24837, Nov. 13, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides for the method of disclosure of information by public institutions, “to peruse or copy documents, drawings, photographs, etc.” under subparagraph 1, and subparagraph 4 provides for “to send them by electronic mail” and “to provide them by means of electronic mail and to peruse, view, or copy and output.” As such, it is sufficient that the information kept and managed in the form of document can be provided by means of perusal or copy of the instant information, and that it can be seen that it would be sufficient for the Plaintiff to send them by means of electronic mail and to provide them by means of e-mail, and that it would be sufficient for the Plaintiff to have access to or copy of the instant information, and that it would be sufficient for the Plaintiff to use other information to provide them by means of perusal or reception of a copy of the instant information and communication network or by means of facsimile transmission.”

4) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unlawful as it requests revocation of non-existent rejection disposition.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Nam-cheon (Presiding Justice)