208Guhap46682 Information Disclosure

○ ○

The head of ○○ Gu

April 22, 2009

May 27, 2009

1. With respect to the information listed in Annex 1. of Annex 1 on September 12, 2008, the defendant revoked a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information made to each plaintiff on September 17, 2008 with respect to each information listed in Annex 2. through 4. of Annex 2 on September 17, 2008.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 1, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of information related to the infant care and welfare field of ○○-gu, including the information listed in the attached Table 1. Paragraph (1) of the attached Table (hereinafter “Information”). The Defendant on September 12, 2008, issued a written request to the Plaintiff for disclosure of the instant information without any grounds and reasons (the Defendant, upon dismissing the Plaintiff’s objection on September 29, 2008, stated Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

B. In addition, on September 4, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of the information related to the current status of the Social Organization Subsidy Support Project in ○○-gu, ○○○, including the information listed in the attached Table 2. through 4. (hereinafter above 2. and 3., referred to as “information” in this case, and the information listed in the above 4. (3).

C. Accordingly, on September 17, 2008, the defendant rejected each disclosure of the information of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case, in addition to the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information of this case and the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information of this case") on the ground that "as to the information of this case, the defendant received a request for non-disclosure as a result of hearing the opinions of a third party under Article 11 (3) of the Information Disclosure Act".

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 2 and 4 evidence 1, 2, and 3 respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition should be revoked because it is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) In rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant did not present the grounds for disposition with respect to the instant information, and it did not err in violation of the procedure regarding “the presentation of the grounds for disposition” under Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act.

(2) The instant information is information on matters already decided or executed by a physician, and it does not interfere with the fair conduct of subsidy support for social organizations in ○○-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. Thus, it does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act (other Plaintiff’s assertion is omitted without requiring a separate judgment as examined in paragraph (c) below).

(b) Relevant statutes;

Information Disclosure Act of Public Institutions

Article 1 (Purpose) This Act is to request people to disclose information held and managed by public institutions and public institutions.

by providing for matters necessary for the duty to disclose such information, thereby guaranteeing citizens' right to know and guaranteeing the State's right to know.

The purpose is to secure transparency in the participation of citizens and the administration of state affairs.

Article 3 (Principle of Disclosure of Information) Any information held and managed by public institutions shall be disclosed as prescribed by this Act.

section 23(3).

Article 8 (Preparation, Keeping, etc. of Information Lists)

(1) A public institution shall disclose information held and managed by it to the public so that the people can easily understand such information.

A record shall be prepared and kept, and the list shall be disclosed through the information disclosure system, etc. utilizing the information and communications network.

information that may not be disclosed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 9 in the list of information;

in the case of inclusion, the relevant part may not be kept or disclosed.

Article 9 (Information Subject to Non-Disclosure)

(1) Information held and managed by a public institution shall be subject to disclosure: Provided, That the following information shall be disclosed:

Information may not be disclosed to the public.

5. Personnel management, decision-making, or internal review process of the development of technology for audit, supervision, inspection, testing, and regulatory tendering contracts;

disclosure of any matter, etc., such disclosure shall seriously interfere with the fair performance of the duties or research and development;

information which may reasonably be deemed to be reasonable;

Article 11 (Decision on Whether to Disclose Information)

(1) Where a request for information disclosure is made pursuant to Article 10, the public institution shall register the date of receipt of the request.

shall be determined within 10 days from the date of disclosure.

(3) A public institution shall recognize that all or some of the information subject to disclosure requested is related to a third party.

such fact shall be notified to a third party without delay, and if necessary, his/her opinion.

may hear.

Article 13 (Notice of Decision on Whether to Disclose Information)

(4) Where a public agency decides not to disclose information pursuant to Article 11, it shall request the fact.

shall be notified in writing without delay to the public. In such cases, the grounds for non-disclosure, the method of appeal and the procedure for appeal shall be sought.

must be specified in subsection (1).

Administrative Procedures Act

Article 23 (Presentation of Grounds for Dispositions)

(1) When rendering dispositions, administrative agencies shall do so to the parties except in the following cases:

(2) shall set forth the basis and reasons for such action.

1. In case of a disposition fully accepts the contents of the applications; and

2. Where a simple, repetitive, or minor disposition is that the parties can clearly understand the reasons.

3. In cases of emergency.

(2) In cases under paragraph (1) 2 and 3, administrative agencies shall, if requested by the parties concerned after dispositions, provide the grounds and grounds therefor.

shall set forth the reasons.

C. Determination

(1) Determination on the assertion of the above A. (1)

Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act imposes an obligation on an administrative agency to present the basis and reason when rendering a disposition. Article 13(4) of the Information Disclosure Act provides that where a public agency makes a decision not to disclose information, it shall specifically state the reason not to disclose the information. Meanwhile, according to the relevant provisions of Articles 1, 3, 8, and 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, a public agency which is requested by the public to disclose information held and managed by the public shall disclose the information unless it falls under the reason not to disclose information provided for in each subparagraph of Article 9(1). Even if the refusal is made, it shall specifically confirm and examine the contents of the information subject to review and verify which part conflicts with any legal interests or fundamental rights, thereby refusing to disclose the information solely for the general reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du8969, Feb. 8, 2007).

In light of these relevant provisions and legal principles, the defendant rejected the disclosure of information on the sole ground of Article 11 (3) (the public agency is sufficient to refer to the third party's opinion, and the public agency is not bound to do so) that did not show the grounds and reasons for the disposition with respect to the information of this case (the grounds and reasons for the disposition should be presented at the time of the disposition. Thus, the plaintiff's rejection of the plaintiff's objection and the ground for the disposition can not be different because it stated the grounds for the disposition only). As to the information of this case (2) without disclosing whether the information of this case constitutes the grounds for non-disclosure as provided in Article 9 (1) (i) of the Information Disclosure Act, the notification and hearing procedures for the third party related to the information requested to be disclosed is stipulated, and thus, it cannot be viewed as legitimate disposition and presentation of reasons. Thus, among the dispositions of this case, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

However, with respect to the information in this case, it is likely to interfere with the fair performance of duties, such as the enhancement of free and active opinions in deliberation, as the grounds for disposition.

Since it can be sufficiently known that Article 9 (1) 5 of the Information Disclosure Act is the ground for disposition, it shall be deemed that there is a legitimate ground and reason for disposition. Thus, the original assertion is without merit.

(2) Determination on the assertion of the above A. (2)

Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that information held and managed by a public institution shall be disclosed in principle, but it may not be disclosed exceptionally to the public if it is open to the public as a matter in the decision-making process or internal review process, etc. However, the information which has considerable interest to be recognized as significantly impeding the fair performance of duties, etc. In this context, "where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the fair performance of duties would substantially interfere with the fair performance of duties if disclosed." In light of the purpose of the information disclosure system under Article 1 and the legislative intent of Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, "where disclosed, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the fair performance of duties would interfere with the fair performance of duties if disclosed, it refers to a light of highly probable probability that the public performance of duties would objectively interfere with the objective performance of duties. The determination of whether there is such information should be prudented and prudented to the Defendant by comparing the interests of the people such as fairness in performing duties protected by the non-disclosure with the rights to know, the burden of proof of national participation in government affairs, and the transparency of government affairs.

In light of the relevant provisions and legal principles, the defendant cannot say that even if the personal information of this case is excluded from the personal information of this case, it can not be said that the defendant takes advantage of the personal information of this case. The deliberation of social organization subsidies is sensitive, and if the minutes are disclosed, it may not be freely discussed by the members under psychological pressure. However, it is argued that the deliberation of the subsidy of this case may interfere with the performance of the following year. However, the information of this case is about the deliberation of the subsidy of 2008 already decided and executed, and it is not "information in the process of decision-making or internal review" of Article 9 (1) 5, but "information in the process of the above decision-making process or internal review" of the plaintiff's request for disclosure of the personal information of this case, other than the personal information of this case, and it is difficult to conclude that the defendant's request for disclosure of the personal information of this case is unlawful in view of the defendant's right to know and the purpose of the fair operation of the information of this case.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.

Within the presiding judge;

Judges Kim Jong-il

Judges Cho Jong-hee

List

1. Minutes of the Child Care Policy Committee of ○-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2007, and 2008;

2. Subsidies of social organizations from ○○-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on a three-year basis in 2005, 2006, and 2007;

each organization received;

(a)in 205, 2006, and 3 years 2007, stating the specific items and amount of the subsidy disbursement;

Reports of settlement of accounts and documentary evidence

(c) Business performance reports of 205, 2006, and 2007;

3. 208 submitted by each organization that received subsidies from the ○-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from the ○○-gu.

document in which a plan or such plan is written (see e.g., ○○ Green Syman Federation, ○○

Barun Senior Citizens' Group, 00 ○ Office of Education's Voluntary Scholarship Council, and 3 or more organizations are excluded)

4. Minutes of the deliberation committee on social organization subsidy support in 2008, Seoul Special Metropolitan City ○○-gu.

Finally, excluding personal information) :