(영문) 서울행정법원 2010.8.13. 선고 2010구합17786 판결

The defendant's decision on March 25, 2010 on the disclosure of information on the process of selecting the area subject to the second pilot project by the plaintiff on March 25, 2010 on the environment-friendliness (minimum measure for second pollutant), and the written evaluation and announcement evaluation scores of items subject to the resident's consent (resolution of the cause of civil petition) and the evidentiary materials

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in Gap evidence 1 and Gap evidence 2:

A. On October 15, 2009, the Government established a plan to implement a project to create the E (referring to a village with a comprehensive system that uses energy and materials in the circulation in the region and uses them in the region and uses natural power suitable for the characteristics of the region in addition to the occurrence of biomass, as it is extremely low in the potential of energy available resources or actual energy utilization rate in the case of agricultural and fishing villages and small cities through consultation with related ministries, etc., and thus it is necessary to maximize the living environment, resource utilization, and economic effects through the creation of an independent energy-oriented village in the case of the city of rural and small cities, as it is necessary to maximize the living environment, resource utilization, and economic effects through the creation of an integrated resourceization process).

B. According to the plan, the Ministry of the Interior and Safety selected two sites for the project of urban complex type from 2010 to 201, based on the pilot project plan submitted by the basic local government via the metropolitan local government, including the first written evaluation of the "Central Evaluation Team of the E-Pilot Project (hereinafter referred to as the "Central Evaluation Team"), the second on-site examination, the third on-site announcement evaluation, the fourth final selection, etc., consisting of experts in civil, public, academic and academic circles, and prepared a master plan for E-development project to promote the pilot project at the place from 2010 to 2011.

C. The Ministry of the Interior and Safety, on December 18, 2010, selected Friju as the first pilot project site for seven local governments, including public cities, which submitted a project plan in accordance with the master plan, following the review and evaluation procedure by the central evaluation group.

D. On March 15, 2010, the Plaintiff’s resident living in the same Ri requested the Defendant to disclose information on the assessment points and evidentiary materials of the assessment items, such as the selection of the land subject to the pilot project and the environmental impact of the claim(s) and the consent of the resident(s). However, on March 25, 2010, the Defendant determined non-disclosure of information on the ground that the information subject to disclosure request falls under the information under the process of decision-making or internal review as prescribed by Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) and the disclosure of information is deemed to significantly impede the fair performance of duties if disclosed.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

As long as the land subject to a pilot project is already selected, the environmental assessment (minimum measure against the second pollutant) stated in the purport of the claim and the residents' consent (defluence of civil petition) cannot be deemed as a matter in the decision-making process or internal review process, and the disclosure of information on a request for disclosure can enhance transparency in the progress of the pilot project in the future. Thus, the information on a request for disclosure does not constitute a non-disclosure information as stipulated in the Information Disclosure Act, and even if it constitutes non-disclosure information, considering the above circumstances, the part concerning the request for disclosure among the above decision made by the Defendant is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) In light of the legislative purport of information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, “matters in the process of audit, supervision, inspection, test, regulation, tendering contract, technology development, personnel management decision-making or internal review, etc.” as information subject to non-disclosure under the same provision, and “matters in the process of audit, supervision, examination, regulation, tendering contract, technology development, personnel management, decision-making, or internal review” under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act shall be deemed as the case where the information subject to non-disclosure is listed as an example of the information subject to non-disclosure. Thus, where the meeting-related data or the minutes on which the meeting-related decision-making process provided in the decision-making process or the decision-making process are recorded are determined or executed, the information subject to non-disclosure can no longer be deemed as being directly in the decision-making process, but may be included in the information subject to non-disclosure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du12946, Aug.

In light of the above legal principles, the health team and the information on a request for disclosure are recorded in the contents of the review and evaluation of the central evaluation group already completed, and it is not the "matters in the process of decision-making" under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Information Disclosure Act, but it constitutes matters corresponding thereto.

(2) In addition, in light of the purpose of the information disclosure system under Article 1 of the Information Disclosure Act and the legislative intent of the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, “where there is a considerable reason to believe that the fair performance of duties would substantially interfere with the fair performance of duties if disclosed” in Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act means where there is a high probability that the fair performance of duties would substantially interfere with the fair performance of duties when disclosed. Determination of whether to fall under the case should be made carefully in accordance with specific cases by comparing and comparing the interests of fairness such as the fair performance of duties protected by non-disclosure and the interests of guaranteeing citizens’ right to know, securing citizens’ participation in state affairs, and securing transparency in state administration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du2913, Jun. 10, 20

In this case, when considering the overall purport of the pleading in Gap evidence 2, the central evaluation team's evaluation procedure shall be determined by each local government based on the demonstration project plan submitted by basic local governments, such as Si/Gun/Gu through metropolitan local governments, including Cities/Dos, through examination and evaluation procedures. Among them, the first written evaluation is the procedure that sets a comprehensive score by consisting of three indexes in three fields, such as suitability of villages to objectively evaluate sustainability, ripple effects, etc. of the project, energy and resourceization systems, implementation methods, etc., and the third written evaluation is the procedure that mainly evaluates the suitability of the target village, resource recovery system, implementation methods, expected effects, etc., the third written evaluation is the procedure that mainly evaluates the participation of residents, such as suitability of the target village, resource recovery system, accessibility for collecting and transporting biomass, conditions of energy supply and demand, etc

According to the above facts, since the review and evaluation related to the decision-making by the free central evaluation group has been conducted in the procedure of the central evaluation group, even after the completion of the evaluation in order to conduct a free and active review and evaluation at the central evaluation group, it shall be thoroughly guaranteed that the contents of the review and evaluation conducted by individual members are not disclosed to the outside in the process of the review and evaluation. If the data on the review and evaluation are disclosed, the members may not be free to conduct a free examination with psychological pressure, and even if there is a concern about the examination and evaluation conducted in conformity with the parties or external intentions, and even if there is a concern about the possibility that the examination and evaluation conducted by the members might harm the free atmosphere of examination and interfere with the securing of fairness. Thus, the results of the review and evaluation shall not be disclosed to the outside in order to promote the loyalty and accountability of the review and evaluation by concentrating the members on the examination

(3) Therefore, there are reasonable grounds to recognize that disclosure of information containing the result of the review and evaluation of the members may seriously impede the fair performance of the review and evaluation task by the central evaluation group (the Plaintiff’s deviation and abuse of discretion is not accepted on the same ground). Of the above decision made by the Defendant, the part concerning the information about the disclosure request is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.