[1] Criteria for determining whether the disclosure of test information under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act may seriously interfere with the fair performance of duties

[2] The case holding that the perusal of the answer sheet for the second examination of the judicial examination cannot be deemed as a significant obstacle to the performance of the judicial examination affairs, unlike the perusal of the marking result for each marking member for the examination notice

[1] Whether the disclosure of information as a test information under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act seriously hinders the fair performance of the business should be determined on an individual basis of the purpose of legislation, the nature and contents of the test and evaluation act in question, the increase in work due to the disclosure of the contents and the disclosure, and the ripple effect of the disclosure.

[2] The case holding that the perusal of the answer sheet for the second examination of the judicial examination cannot be deemed as a significant obstacle to the performance of the judicial examination affairs, unlike the perusal of the marking result by each grading member for the examination question.

[1] Article 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act / [2] Article 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

The Minister of Justice (Attorney Lee Jae-il, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu12375 delivered on June 27, 2000

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals are dismissed.

1. As to the request for delivery of copies of the marking result by marking committee members on the answer sheet and each examination sheet

The court below rejected the plaintiffs' action on this part on the ground that it is obvious that the plaintiff clearly stated the purport of the lawsuit in the second preparation procedure of the court of first instance that the plaintiff's right to seek as a lawsuit in this case is "a revocation of the rejection disposition against the request for inspection of the marking result by marking committee members" and the purport of the lawsuit in this part is "a revocation of the rejection disposition against the request for inspection of the marking result by marking committee members" among the contents of the brief submitted to the court in the administrative litigation and the documents stating the marking result by grading committee members for each test. The court below rejected the judgment of the court below on the ground that there is no notification of the request for delivery of the copy in this part, which is the premise of the rejection disposition, because it is obvious that the plaintiff expressed his intention to withdraw the assertion as to the request for delivery of the copy in this part, and therefore, it is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the disclosure of public information and the confession in the administrative litigation under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

2. As to the perusal of the result of grading by each member on the answer proposal and each subject of examination

A. The court below held that since the second examination, which is an essay test, is implemented to evaluate the overall understanding of legal knowledge of applicants through the examination, logical thinking ability, application ability related to the resolution of all issues presented in the examination, creativity and systematic descriptive ability, it is useful means to measure applicants' overall academic achievement and thinking ability. The evaluation work of such essay-type examination is expected to depend on the subjective evaluation of evaluators based on high-level professional knowledge and knowledge held by an evaluator, and knowledge, etc., so the evaluation criteria and evaluation results are guaranteed only by conducting high-level professional and subjective judgment and moral conscience exclusively to the evaluator, and the propriety of the evaluation work is guaranteed. If the result of the second examination is perused by each member of the examination site and the examination questions, it is difficult to acknowledge that the examination-type test is legitimate in light of the purpose of legislation and the purpose of legislation and the result of the examination without any choice and the result of the examination, and ultimately, it is unlikely to interfere with the fair performance of the examination-type examination-related examination-related examination-related examination-related examination-related examination-related examination-related examination-related examination-related examination-related examination-related examination-related examination-related examination-related examination-related examination-related examination-related examination-related examination-related examination-related performance.

B. Article 7 (1) 5 of the Act provides that information pertaining to testing (hereinafter referred to as "testing information") which, if disclosed, has considerable grounds for remarkably impeding the fair performance of the business, may not be disclosed to the public. Here, whether disclosure as testing information causes significant impediment to the fair performance of the business shall be determined individually by taking into account the legislative intent of allowing the disclosure of law and test information, the nature and contents of the test and evaluation act in question, the increase in the business due to the disclosure of the contents and disclosure, the ripple effect of the disclosure, etc.

First, it is correct that the judgment of the court below is in accordance with the above legal principles as to the perusal of the grading results by the grading committee for the examination questions, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the non-disclosure of information under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The argument in the grounds of appeal on this point is rejected.

Next, it can be deemed that the increase in the work would be somewhat likely to occur when allowing the perusal of the answer sheet to the health room and the answer sheet, and that there may be some difficulties in the performance of the test due to ripple effects such as influence on the perusal of another answer sheet. However, the answer sheet only contains the answer sheet about the examination issue of the applicant, but does not reflect the evaluation criteria or evaluation results of the evaluator, so even if the applicant peruses his answer sheet, it is less likely that the appraiser may interfere with the performance of the test, unlike the case where the score results by the grading commissioner for the answer sheet are perused, even if the perusal of the answer sheet is allowed, there is little possibility that there is an adverse effect in the performance of the test by mutual comparison of the answer sheet, and there is no data that is expected to have a widening of the perusal work.

Nevertheless, the court below's determination that, on the grounds as seen above, allowing perusal of the answer sheet may seriously interfere with the fair performance of the test, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles of non-disclosure information under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs is reversed and remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)