logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.06.02 2014구합7263
정보공개결정처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a project undertaker under the Housing Act approved for a housing construction project by the Defendant on June 19, 2012 in order to construct and supply privately-owned houses subject to the maximum sale price system (hereinafter “instant apartment houses”) from A-20 block in Gyeyang-gu Housing Site Development District in Gyeyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, which is a public housing site.

B. The Plaintiff submitted a “written deliberation on sales price” to the Defendant who seeks approval for the recruitment of occupants pursuant to Articles 38, 38-2, and 38-4 of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 1233, Jan. 24, 2014; hereinafter “former Housing Act”), and the Defendant approved the recruitment of occupants according to the result of the examination by the sales price examination committee, which deliberated on the appropriateness of the sales price on June 2013.

C. However, around January 2014, A, the buyer of the instant apartment, requested the Defendant to disclose the deliberation data on the sales price, and the information on the attached list including the business approval books submitted by the Plaintiff during the process of obtaining business approval (hereinafter “each of the instant information”).

The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that a request for disclosure of information was made pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) on January 13, 2014, and requested the Plaintiff to submit his/her opinion.

E. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose each of the information of this case on the ground that it constitutes a business secrets under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

F. However, it is difficult to view each of the information of this case as constituting "business and trade secrets" under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Information Disclosure Act, and corresponding thereto.

Even if it is necessary to disclose the property or life of the people from illegal and unfair business activities under the proviso of the same subparagraph.

arrow