[1] Whether a public institution can be deemed to hold and manage the information subject to a request for disclosure even if the information that is held and managed in an electronic form by the public institution is not the case where the applicant for disclosure of information seeks (affirmative with qualification)

[2] In a case where information, the disclosure of which was refused, is mixed with the part that constitutes information subject to non-disclosure and the part that can be disclosed, and two parts can be separated within the scope that does not violate the purpose of the request for disclosure, the method

[3] Where an administrative agency rejected a request for disclosure of original score information, etc. by an examinee of the College College Ability Test, the case reversing the judgment of the court below which revoked all dispositions rejecting the disclosure of information including the examinee's personal information

[1] The information disclosure system under the Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions is a system that discloses information held and managed by a public institution in its original state. However, in the case of information held and managed in an electronic form, even if the information does not correspond to the claimant's request, if the public institution in receipt of the request for disclosure retains and manages basic data of the information subject to disclosure request in an electronic form, and searches such basic data using computer hardware and software used ordinarily by the public institution, technical expertise, and can edit them as requested by the claimant, and such work does not cause any particular impediment to the computer system operation of the public institution in question, the public institution can be deemed to possess and manage the information subject to disclosure request, and in such a case, searching and editing basic data shall not be deemed to constitute the production

[2] Article 14 of the Official Information Disclosure Act provides that 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, and that, if two parts can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of the request for disclosure, the part that falls under the information subject to non-disclosure should be disclosed, unless it violates the purport of the request for disclosure. As a result, if the court examines whether the information refused to be disclosed contains the part that constitutes the information subject to non-disclosure and the part that can be disclosed, and if it can be deemed that two parts can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of the request for disclosure, the part that can be disclosed among the information refused to be disclosed shall be specified, and only the part that can be disclosed

[3] In a case where an administrative agency rejected a request for disclosure of original score information by an examinee subject to the College Ability Test, the case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the court below erred by misapprehending the party's interpretation of intent or the methods of drafting the order of judgment, etc., on the ground that since the applicant does not seem to have requested disclosure of information on each examinee's personal information, it is reasonable that the original score information does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, and even if unlike this, it is reasonable to disclose only the remaining part of original score information excluding examinee's identification such as examination number, name, resident registration number, etc., among original score information.

[1] Article 3 of the Official Information Disclosure Act / [2] Articles 9(1) and 14 of the Official Information Disclosure Act / [3] Articles 9(1)6 and 14 of the Official Information Disclosure Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Du6425 Decided March 11, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 997) Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12707 Decided December 9, 2004 (Gong2005Sang, 119) Supreme Court Decision 2009Du2702 Decided April 23, 2009

Plaintiff

The Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Law Firm Gyeongsung, Attorneys Masung-si et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu24196 decided April 1, 2009

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the original score information of examinees, such as examination number, name, resident registration number, etc., shall be reversed, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and this part of the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed. The remaining appeal shall be dismissed. All costs of appeal shall be borne by

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The information disclosure system under the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) is a system that discloses information held and managed by a public institution in its original state, but in the case of information held and managed in an electronic form, even if the information is not as requested by the claimant, if the public institution requested to disclose holds and manages the basic data of the information subject to request for disclosure in an electronic form, and searches such basic data using computer hardware, software, and technical expertise used normally by the public institution, and searches such basic data as requested by the claimant, and if such work does not cause any particular obstacle to the computer system operation of the institution concerned, it can be deemed that the public institution retains and manages the information subject to request for disclosure, and in such a case, searching and editing basic data does not constitute the production or processing of new information.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that the defendant can obtain the original score information and rating classification information of the examinee in 2008 on the College Ability Test without any difficulty in preparing the result by searching and processing individual information already held by the defendant using a computer device, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. It is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of information to be disclosed under the Information Disclosure Act or in the incomplete hearing as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The argument in this part of the grounds of appeal is apparent in the record that the defendant asserted only before the closing of argument in the court of final appeal, and is not an ex officio examination, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

A. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that revoked all dispositions rejecting the disclosure of information regarding "original score information of the examinee" (hereinafter "disposition rejecting the disclosure of original score information of this case"), on the ground that the plaintiff only claimed the disclosure of information on the original score of the whole examinee, and it does not seem to have claimed the disclosure of information on each examinee's personal information and the original score of each examinee. Thus, the original score information cannot be deemed to constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 6 of the Information Disclosure Act, and even if otherwise, the defendant is obliged to disclose the remaining information except the original score information of the examinee from the original score information.

B. However, it is difficult to accept the lower court’s determination that the Plaintiff did not request the disclosure of information on the identity of each examinee for the following reasons.

In other words, according to Gap evidence No. 1, it is necessary for the plaintiff to claim that the so-called "water-related class system" is unreasonable, and otherwise, without limiting the scope of information subject to disclosure request, the defendant requested the disclosure of "water-related original score" without limiting the scope of information subject to disclosure request. Accordingly, on the premise that each examinee's identification, such as examination number, name, resident registration number, etc. (hereinafter "examiner's identification") and all examinees' individual original score information (hereinafter "original score information for each examinee") composed of the datum number of the examinee in question, are subject to disclosure request information, the student's grade information constitutes personal information and thus it is impossible to disclose it to the general public without the student's consent. In light of these circumstances, it cannot be said that the plaintiff requested the disclosure of the original score information in this case only for the remaining part except the examinee's original score information for the above part, or the defendant refused to disclose the original score information in this case only for the above part.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the examinee's personal information was excluded from the original subject of the request for information disclosure and the disposition rejecting the disclosure of original score information of this case from the beginning. In this regard, the court below erred by misapprehending the party's intent on each subject of the request for information disclosure and the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information, which affected

C. In addition, while the court below judged that the defendant is obligated to disclose the remaining information except examinee's identification from original score information, it is also difficult to accept the judgment of the court of first instance that entirely revoked the disposition rejecting the disclosure of original score information of this case for the following reasons.

In other words, the order of the judgment must be clearly identified by itself. Meanwhile, Article 14 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that the information requested to be disclosed is mixed with the information falling under the information subject to non-disclosure under each subparagraph of Article 9(1) and the information that can be disclosed, and where the two parts can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of the request for disclosure, the part falling under the information subject to non-disclosure should be disclosed, if the court examines whether the information refused to be disclosed is unlawful or not, and the part falling under the information subject to non-disclosure can be disclosed can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of the request for disclosure. In case where the court recognizes that the two parts can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of the request for disclosure, the part which can be disclosed among the information refused to be disclosed shall be specified, and only the part concerning the information which could be disclosed among the information refused to be disclosed shall be revoked in the text of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du6425, Mar. 11, 2003>

Nevertheless, the court below held that it is reasonable to disclose only the remaining parts of original score information for each examinee, except the examinee's identification, on the grounds of the judgment, and maintained the judgment of the court of first instance that entirely revoked the disposition rejecting the disclosure of original score information of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the methods of drafting the text of judgment or Article 14 of the Information Disclosure Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the original score information of the examinee is reversed, but this part is sufficient to be judged directly by this court. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance corresponding to the above reversal part is revoked, and this part of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed, and all costs of the lawsuit are borne by the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)