[1] Criteria for determining “information pertaining to the examination, which, if disclosed, substantially interferes with the fair performance of duties,” which is information subject to non-disclosure under the Official Information Disclosure Act

[2] The case holding that the issue of the national examination for dentists and the information pertaining to the disclosure of information by the public institutions with a correct answer can be subject to non-disclosure under the Act

[1] Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act provides that the disclosure of information pertaining to tests that has considerable grounds to believe that the disclosure may seriously obstruct the fair performance of duties may not be made. Here, whether the disclosure of information as a test information may seriously interfere with the fair performance of duties shall be determined individually by taking into account the legislative intent of allowing the disclosure of the relevant tests and evaluation information, the nature and contents of the relevant tests and evaluation act, the increase in duties due to the disclosure of the contents and disclosure, and the ripple effect on the disclosure.

[2] The case holding that the disclosure of the examination questions and their answers to the examination questions may not be made in accordance with Article 9 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure of examination questions and their answers significantly impede the fair performance, research and development of the examination affairs, considering the fact that the method of setting the examination questions adopted by the national examination for dentists has many advantages, such as reducing the time and expenses for setting questions, securing a good quality language, etc., and the results that may be caused by the disclosure of the examination questions and the side effects that may be caused by the examination affairs

[1] Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act / [2] Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Du6114 Delivered on March 14, 2003

Plaintiff

Korea Health Personnel Licensing Examination Institute (Attorney Kim Si-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Nu3522 Delivered on September 22, 2006

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) provides that the disclosure of information pertaining to tests (hereinafter “testing information”) that has considerable grounds for remarkably obstructing the fair performance of duties may not be made. Here, whether disclosure as testing information causes significant impediment to the fair performance of duties shall be determined individually by taking into account the legislative intent of allowing the disclosure of information disclosure law and test information, the nature and contents of the test and evaluation act, the increase in duties due to disclosure, and ripple effect due to disclosure (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du6114, Mar. 14, 2003).

2. In full view of the evidence adopted by the court below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) the plaintiff against the defendant on March 31, 2005, which was enforced on January 21, 2005 at the 57th dental national examination (hereinafter "the examination of this case") and claimed disclosure of the fixed answer points; (b) the defendant rendered the disposition of this case on April 6, 2005, which rejected disclosure of the examination because of Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act; (c) the defendant accumulated the questions received from the relevant experts before the implementation of the examination of this case, and selected the examination questions to be prepared among them; and (d) it is difficult to find that the examination of this case is operated as a method of preparing a bank for the purpose of preparing or destroying them again after re-ratizing the examination of this case after the lapse of a certain period of time; (d) the defendant's examination of this case's examination of this case's open questions and examination questions for the development and development of the examination questions of this case's examination questions.

3. However, the method of setting questions, which the defendant adopts in the examination of this case, has many advantages such as securing high-quality questions even when the time and cost of setting questions have been saved. If the examination of this case is disclosed, it is practically impossible to set questions identical with or similar to the time questions, and making them open to the public for several years, it would lead to a situation in which it is impossible to maintain a bank which has already been accumulated, and in order to operate the examination of this case in such a way as not to draw questions again, it should be the premise that a large number of questions can be accumulated in the examination of this case. The time and cost of setting questions are incurred, and even if many questions are developed every year, the scope of questions that can be set can not be set more gradually difficult, and the examination questions may not be set in the examination of this case where the examination of this case can be set and made open to the public, and the examination of this case's questions may not be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be determined and announced by the examination questions and answers.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise that the instant disposition was unlawful. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)