Plaintiff

The Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs

March 5, 2013

1. The Defendant’s refusal to disclose information on August 29, 2012 to the Plaintiff is revoked, with the exception of the information specified in paragraph (2) of the attached Table 1. “List” as to the information listed in paragraph (1) of the same Table.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 30% of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The defendant's refusal to request the disclosure of information on August 29, 2012 as stated in attached Form 1.1, "List" against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, around December 1931, the deceased Non-party 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (other names: Non-party 6; hereinafter collectively referred to as “the deceased”), who is a relative, brought an application for the reward to the deceased for the persons of distinguished services to the national independence to the deceased. On December 201, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the reward to the deceased for the persons of distinguished services to the national independence.

B. On August 9, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the public examination that the details of the deceased’s activities and the fact of active participation in the independence movement were unclear, following the review by the “Committee for Review of Meritorious of Distinguished Services to Independence” under its control (hereinafter “Review Committee”).

C. On August 23, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant for disclosure of the information, etc. indicated in Paragraph (1) of Attached Table 1, “List” (hereinafter “instant minutes”), which is the minutes stating the standards for rewarding persons of distinguished services to national independence and the review details of the Review Committee against the Deceased.

D. On August 29, 2012, the Defendant: (a) disclosed the criteria for reward and the grounds for withholding reward; (b) notified that the instant minutes may not be disclosed pursuant to Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”); (c) the instant minutes were subject to disclosure (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 5, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the minutes of this case do not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act, the disposition of this case which did not disclose it is unlawful.

(b) Relevant statutes;

2. Attached Table 2. The entry into “related Acts and subordinate statutes, etc.”

C. Determination

(1) “Matters in the process of audit, supervision, examination, regulation, tendering contract, technology development, personnel management, decision-making, or internal review, etc.” under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act refers to an example provision. Thus, the meeting-related data and minutes, etc. recorded in the decision-making process, which are provided in the process of decision-making process, cannot be deemed as a matter in the process of decision-making, but may be included in the information subject to non-disclosure as corresponding matters. 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 Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, where disclosure is highly probable that the fair performance of duties would considerably interfere with the objective of the information subject to non-disclosure, and whether it falls under this provision shall be determined by comparing the interests of the public, such as fairness in the performance of duties, and the interests of the people, including government administration, and the interests of the people, including government administration, 2012.

Meanwhile, Article 14 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that, in a case where the information requested for disclosure contains the part falling under the information subject to non-disclosure under each subparagraph of Article 9(1) and the part that can be disclosed, if the two parts can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of the request for disclosure, the part that constitutes the information subject to non-disclosure should be disclosed should be excluded. As a result, in a case where the court examines whether the information refused to disclose is unlawful or not, and where it is recognized that the part that constitutes the information subject to non-disclosure and the part that could be disclosed can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of the request for disclosure, and where the two parts can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of the request for disclosure, the court must revoke the disposition rejecting disclosure of the above information by specifying the part that

(2) In light of such legal principles, the minutes of this case recording the contents in the process of deliberation and resolution by the Health Team and the Review Committee on the Deceased may not be deemed to be “matters in the process of decision-making” as provided by Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, unless the notice of non-payment of reward was given in accordance with the resolution. However, it may be included in non-disclosure information equivalent thereto.

However, the above facts are as follows. ① A person recognized as one subject to the application of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service pursuant to the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service can receive actual benefits, such as money, etc. under the above Acts, as well as the honor that he/she is the party who filed an application for the disclosure of information. As such, the disclosure of the minutes of the Examination Committee is necessary to effectively guarantee citizens' right to know. ② The provisions of Articles 3 and 5 of the Regulations on the Management of Public Service of Persons of Distinguished Service, enacted based on the delegation of the Act on the Awards and Decorations and the Enforcement Decree thereof (hereinafter “Operation Regulations”) are difficult to determine that the disclosure or non-disclosure of information is highly likely to seriously obstruct the public disclosure or non-disclosure of information based on objective data, such as personal knowledge about the non-disclosure or non-disclosure of information, and thus, the disclosure or non-disclosure of information is difficult to be determined based on such objective data as the disclosure or non-disclosure of information by the Examination Committee’s non-disclosure of information.

However, since questions and discussions related to decision-making are made in the process of deliberation and resolution, in order to guarantee free and active deliberation, it is necessary to ensure that matters concerning individuals, such as the list of participants (in addition to the contents of the statement in this case, the members participating in the decision-making), names of persons participating in the meeting in addition to the contents of the statement in this case, resident registration numbers, etc., are disclosed to the public, the participants cannot be able to directly and freely exchange their opinions in the process of deliberation due to psychological pressure due to their burden on disclosure of the contents of the statement in this case. Furthermore, in order to prevent such situation and concentrate on the participants in the deliberation, it is reasonable to hold that matters concerning individuals, such as the list of persons participating in the meeting in addition to the contents of the meeting, names and resident registration numbers of persons participating in the meeting (in addition to the contents of the meeting in this case) should not be disclosed to the outside. Accordingly, information pertaining to persons participating in the meeting in the meeting in question, including the list of persons participating in the meeting in question, and the name and resident registration numbers of persons participating in the meeting, etc.

(3) Therefore, the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information pertaining to the information listed in Attachment 1. 2 of the instant disposition is legitimate, but the remainder is illegal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Yoon Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)