(영문) 대전고등법원 2015.3.19. 선고 2014누11722 판결

A. On January 6, 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose the list of the case (Investigation) records No. 2013-Type 2009 and No. 2012-type 4699 of the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter “instant information”).

B. On January 7, 2014, the Defendant rejected disclosure of the instant information to the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 and 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The instant information does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff’s claim for disclosure of information not only in the instant case but also constitutes abuse of rights because it causes considerable burden of duties and administrative waste to each agency while filing an administrative litigation against a large number of comprehensive or non-related claim for disclosure of information against the national agency and thereby constitutes abuse of rights.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(1) The Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for more than three years and six months, and repeatedly filed a variety of claims against various state agencies for disclosure of information over several times, and filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information at each court across the country (hereinafter referred to as “litigation seeking revocation of information”).

(2) In multiple cases, the administrative agency decided to disclose or partially disclose the Plaintiff’s information disclosure claim, but the Plaintiff did not receive the relevant information.

(3) The Plaintiff appointed a specific attorney as a legal representative in a lawsuit claiming the disclosure of information. However, from February 17, 201 to February 21, 2014, the Plaintiff’s legal representative met the Plaintiff three times only from around February 17, 201 to around February 21, 2014, and did not submit a preparatory document or documentary evidence, and the Plaintiff prepared and submitted a document related to the lawsuit to receive the Plaintiff himself/herself over several occasions. In the interview with the employees of the correctional institution, the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that he/she would distribute it to the attorney.

(4) At least 90 times of the Plaintiff’s appearance in the court to appear in the pleading of a lawsuit claiming information disclosure, the Plaintiff did not pay the cost of attendance in the court.

(5) The Plaintiff stated to the effect that “A request for disclosure of information and a lawsuit seeking disclosure of information, in consultation with the prison staff, in progress, was not for remedies for infringement of rights, and that “a request for disclosure of information and a lawsuit seeking disclosure of information was an act of blining administrative power of a state agency.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 24, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Relevant legal principles

The right to know, in particular, the right to access information held and managed by public institutions, is recognized in relation to the freedom of expression, which is a fundamental right under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, and the content of such right includes the so-called general right to information disclosure that anyone can request the disclosure of information

Therefore, a citizen’s claim for information disclosure should be widely permitted as a matter of principle unless it falls under information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act. However, in fact, where it is evident that a citizen’s claim for information disclosure constitutes abuse of rights, such as where he/she intends to obtain unjust benefits which cannot be accepted by social norms by using the information disclosure system without any intent to acquire or utilize the pertinent information, or where he/she solely files a claim for information disclosure for the purpose of inducing public officials in charge of public institutions (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du9349, Dec. 24,

(2) According to the above facts, the plaintiff did not claim the disclosure of information to the defendant for access to the information of this case, but if the named party refuses to do so, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff won a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the rejection disposition and received a large amount of the costs of lawsuit than the actual costs of lawsuit in the lawsuit, through the procedure for confirmation of litigation costs, and filed a claim for the disclosure of information for the purpose of evading forced labor by attending the court on the date of pleading during the number of days of pleading. In accordance with the above legal principles, such claim for disclosure of information shall not

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for disclosure of the instant information is lawful.

(4) As to this, the Plaintiff added the grounds for disposition by newly asserting that the Plaintiff’s claim for information disclosure constitutes an abuse of rights, even though the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision pursuant to Article 9(1)4 and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act at the time of the instant disposition, and subsequently, subsequently, during the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff added the grounds for disposition by asserting that the Plaintiff’s claim for information disclosure constituted an abuse

However, the court should decide in accordance with the principle of good faith, which is the basis of abuse of rights, and if the exercise of rights by the parties is recognized as abuse of rights, it is inevitable to dismiss the claim. Thus, even if the defendant did not express the abuse of rights as the ground for the original disposition, it cannot be said that it is an additional modification of the ground for disposition. Therefore, the plaintiff

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions (In addition, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked the remaining part of the disposition in this case excluding the name of the person who made the statement, but the remaining part of the disposition is not clearly indicated in the order that the remaining claim is dismissed). It is so decided as per Disposition.