(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.7.12. 선고 2018구합7754 판결

A. On September 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the disclosure of information with respect to the Plaintiff’s civil petition (hereinafter “instant information”) submitted to the Ministry of Education under the name of “B” around August 13, 2018.

B. On September 13, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision not to disclose the instant information on the ground that it should not be used for any purpose other than the purpose of treating civil petitions pursuant to Article 7 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (hereinafter “Civil Petitions Treatment Act”) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Defendant added Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) to the grounds for disposition in the course of the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Article 7 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act or Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act cannot be a ground for the instant disposition, since the instant information is merely about the Plaintiff, and it does not include the content related to the freedom of privacy or confidentiality of the civil petitioner.

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

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

Article 7 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act provides that "the head of an administrative agency shall take necessary measures so that the details of civil petitions known to him/her in connection with the treatment of civil petitions and personal information of a specific person included in the contents of civil petitions should not be disclosed, and the collected information should not be used for any purpose other than the purpose of the treatment of civil petitions." However, the scope of information subject to confidentiality or non-disclosure does not specify, and the above provision should be considered as comprehensively stipulating the duty of care

Therefore, aside from the fact that the instant information falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act and is not disclosed, it cannot be viewed as "information provided as confidential or confidential matters by other Acts" under Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act.

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

1) Whether additional grounds for disposition are permitted

In an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, a disposition agency may add or alter other grounds only to the extent that the grounds for the initial disposition are recognized as identical to the basic facts. The existence of such basic facts is determined based on whether the relevant basic facts are identical in light of the specific facts prior to the legal evaluation of the grounds for disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8395, Dec. 11, 2003).

Article 7 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, which provides that "the defendant shall take necessary measures so that the contents of the civil petition known to him/her in connection with the treatment of the civil petition and the personal information of a specific person included in the contents of the civil petition, shall not be disclosed, and the collected information shall not be used for any purpose other than the purpose of the treatment of the civil petition." The purpose of Article 9 (1) 6 of the Information Disclosure Act is to prevent an infringement on the privacy or the freedom of private life in the case of disclosure of the matters concerning the person who filed the civil petition is to prevent the disclosure of the matters concerning the person who filed the civil petition, and it is deemed that the disclosure of such matters, such as name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information, may infringe on the privacy or freedom of private life if disclosed." Therefore, it is allowed to add

2) Whether the information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act

A) Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "personal information, such as name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information, which is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of an individual if disclosed, shall be one of the information subject to non-disclosure." Pursuant to the aforementioned provision, the information subject to non-disclosure shall include not only "personal identification information" which determines whether the information constitutes non-disclosure based on the type or type of the information, such as name, resident registration number, etc., as well as "personal identification information" which determines whether the information constitutes non-disclosure, but also "information that may cause harm to personal and mental life or be unable to freely engage in private life," and shall include "information that is likely to cause harm to personal life or freely engage in private life" (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Du2361 Decided June 18, 2012).

B) On the other hand, the information prepared or acquired by a public institution under the proviso of Article 9(1)6(c) of the Information Disclosure Act excludes information that is deemed necessary for the public interest or the protection of an individual’s rights. Here, whether disclosure constitutes “information that is deemed necessary for the protection of an individual’s rights” should be determined carefully in accordance with specific cases by comparing and comparing the interests of an individual’s privacy protected by non-disclosure and the interests of an individual’s right protection protected by disclosure, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1424, Oct. 29, 2009)

C) The following facts are acknowledged in light of the aforementioned facts, Gap evidence No. 13, the result of the non-disclosure of the instant information and the purport of the entire pleadings.

① Specific personal information or personal information of a petitioner does not appear in the instant information.

② The instant information is merely about the Plaintiff’s quality as a part-time lecturer at the university, and does not entirely state the information on the private life of the civil petitioner, and rather, most of the information about the Plaintiff’s private life.

③ On January 17, 2019, a civil petitioner submitted a petition to the president of C University Law School to the purport similar to the instant information.

D) Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, there is a need to guarantee the opportunity for the Plaintiff to grasp and defend the exact contents of the civil petition filed by the civil petitioner with respect to him/her, and thereby, it seems that there is no interest in privacy, etc. of an individual who is not protected. Although the D University to which the civil petition of this case was transferred conducted a final investigation into the contents of the civil petition and sent a reply with the Defendant that the content of the civil petition is groundless to the Plaintiff, as seen earlier, the civil petitioner also filed a petition similar to the information of this case against other organizations that are engaged in workplace life of the Plaintiff. As such, repeated civil petitions against the

The plaintiff still needs to be aware of the exact contents for his right remedy.

5. Conclusion

The claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.