Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Burden of Proving Specific Grounds for Non-Disclosure in a Refusal to Disclose Information and the Limits on Adding Grounds for the Disposition in Appeal Litigation (Administrative Litigation)
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Dec. 11, 2003, 2001Du8827 (judgment)
Case name: 정보공개청구거부처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May a public agency that refused to disclose information newly add, in an action for revocation, grounds for non-disclosure different from the original ones?
Holding
A public agency must specifically examine and review the content of the information and assert and prove which part conflicts with which legal interest and falls under which subparagraph's grounds for non-disclosure, and it may not refuse on the basis of grounds stated in general terms alone. Grounds for the disposition may be added or changed only to the extent that the basic facts are the same as the original grounds, and the Supreme Court, finding that the subparagraph 5 ground is not identical with the subparagraph 4 and subparagraph 6 grounds, reversed the judgment of the court below.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
처분청은 당초 처분의 근거로 삼은 사유와 기본적 사실관계가 동일성이 있다고 인정되는 한도 내에서만 다른 사유를 추가하거나 변경할 수 있고
Unofficial English translation
The disposition authority may add or change other grounds only to the extent that they may be regarded as being identical in basic facts with the grounds relied upon as the basis for the original disposition, and
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원으로 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
처분사유를 법률적으로 평가하기 이전의 구체적인 사실에 착안하여 그 기초인 사회적 사실관계가 기본적인 점에서 동일한지 여부에 따라 결정되며
Unofficial English translation
is determined by reference to the concrete facts prior to their legal evaluation as grounds for the disposition, according to whether the underlying social facts are identical in essential respects, and
Factors
- 대상이 된 정보의 내용을 구체적으로 확인·검토하여
- 어느 부분이 어떠한 법익 또는 기본권과 충돌되어
- 그 기초인 사회적 사실관계가 기본적인 점에서 동일한지 여부
- 처분시에 이미 존재하고 있었고 당사자도 그 사실을 알고 있었다 하여
Unofficial English translation
• specifically confirming and examining the content of the information at issue, and
• which part conflicts with what legal interest or fundamental rights, and
• whether the underlying social facts are identical in essential respects
• even if they already existed at the time of the disposition and the party also knew such fact
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1992. 2. 14. 선고 91누3895 판결(공1992, 1046)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 91Nu3895 decided February 14, 1992 (Gong 1992, 1046)
Decisions referred to
[2] 대법원 1987. 7. 21. 선고 85누694 판결(공1987, 1404), 대법원 1988. 1. 19. 선고 87누603 판결(공1988, 460), 대법원 1991. 11. 8. 선고 91누70 판결(공1992, 126), 대법원 1992. 2. 14. 선고 91누3895 판결(공1992, 1046), 대법원 1992. 8. 18. 선고 91누3659 판결(공1992, 2772), 대법원 1994. 9. 23. 선고 94누9368 판결(공1994하, 2877), 대법원 1995. 10. 12. 선고 95누4704 판결(공1995하, 3798), 대법원 1995. 12. 12. 선고 95누9051 판결(공1996상, 414), 대법원 1996. 9. 6. 선고 96누7427 판결(공1996하, 3032), 대법원 1999. 3. 9. 선고 98두18565 판결(공1999상, 680), 대법원 1999. 11. 26. 선고 97누13474 판결(공2000상, 70), 대법원 2001. 3. 23. 선고 99두6392 판결(공2001상, 1015), 대법원 2001. 9. 28. 선고 2000두8684 판결(공2001하, 2371), 대법원 2003. 12. 11. 선고 2003두8395 판결
Burden of proof
The opposing party Stated in the decision
같은 법 제7조 제1항 몇 호에서 정하고 있는 비공개사유에 해당하는지를 주장·입증하여야만 할 것이며
Unofficial English translation
must assert and prove whether it falls under any of the grounds for non-disclosure provided in a certain subparagraph of Article 7 (1) of the Act, and
Open question and revisit condition
By what criteria should it be determined whether the information relating to the pardon in this Case actually falls under the grounds for non-disclosure in subparagraph 4 or subparagraph 6, which were the original grounds?
If the provisions of the Official Information Disclosure Act governing information exempt from disclosure are amended, or if the precedent standard on adding or changing grounds for the disposition in appeal litigation (administrative litigation) is changed, we will re-examine this reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
Compared with an independent reading by an AI of a different family (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 6 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on axis 7 (Burden of proof) and axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 7 (Burden of proof): Primary “The opposing party” vs Independent “The party asserting”
Because the original text requires the public agency refusing disclosure to assert and prove, this may be read either as its status as the opposing party of the applicant, or as the party asserting the grounds for non-disclosure.
입증하여야만 할 것이며, 그에 이르지 아니한 채 개괄적인 사유만을 들어 공개를 거부하는 것은 허용되지 아니한다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “By what criteria should it be determined whether the information relating to the pardon in this Case actually falls under the grounds for non-disclosure in subparagraph 4 or subparagraph 6, which were the original grounds?” vs Independent “Up to what degree of specificity must a public agency present the content of the information in order to prove the grounds for non-disclosure?”
The first reading asks about the substantive criteria for whether the information falls under the original grounds for non-disclosure, while the independent reading asks about the degree of specificity required in presenting the information to prove the grounds for non-disclosure.
처분청은 당초 처분의 근거로 삼은 사유와 기본적 사실관계가 동일성이 있다고 인정되는 한도 내에서만 다른 사유를 추가하거나 변경할 수 있고Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below held that the defendant's invocation of subparagraph 4 and subparagraph 6 when refusing disclosure of information such as the proposal for the implementation of a pardon may be seen as merely giving examples on the premise that the information was exempt from disclosure; that the subparagraph 5 ground added in the lawsuit was based on facts already in existence at the time of the disposition and did not differ substantially from subparagraph 4 in content, so that the basic facts were the same, and it therefore permitted the addition. It then held that the information in this Case fell under subparagraph 5, as information on the decision-making process or the internal review process, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that a public agency must assert and prove specific grounds for non-disclosure, so subparagraph 4 and subparagraph 6 cannot be regarded as mere examples; and that subparagraphs 4, 5, and 6 differ from one another in the facts constituting their requirements, the official duties they seek to protect, and their legislative purpose, so that the basic facts are not the same. Finding that the fact that the grounds rested on facts already in existence at the time of the disposition was no reason to hold otherwise, it reversed and remanded the judgment of the court below.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the added or changed grounds are identical with the original grounds for the disposition in the basic respects of the facts as they exist in society, and differ only in legal characterization
- Where the public agency, at the time of the refusal, specified the legal interest conflicting with the specific content of the information and set out the grounds for non-disclosure
- Where, instead of adding grounds in the course of the lawsuit, a new refusal disposition is made on new grounds
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, compare and check whether the grounds and the underlying statutory provisions stated in the original refusal disposition and the specific facts on which the grounds added in the lawsuit rely are the same as one another.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 정보공개를 요구받은 공공기관이 공공기관의정보공개에관한법률 제7조 제1항 몇 호 소정의 비공개사유에 해당하는지를 주장·입증하지 아니한 채 개괄적인 사유만을 들어 그 공개를 거부할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 행정처분의 취소를 구하는 항고소송에 있어서 당초의 처분사유와 기본적 사실관계의 동일성이 없는 별개의 사실을 처분사유로 주장하는 것을 허용하지 아니하는 입법취지 및 추가 또는 변경된 사유가 당초의 처분시 이미 존재하고 있었고 당사자도 그 사실을 알고 있었다 하여 당초의 처분사유와 동일성이 있는 것인지 여부(소극) [3] 당초의 정보공개거부처분사유인 공공기관의정보공개에관한법률 제7조 제1항 제4호 및 제6호의 사유는 새로이 추가된 같은 항 제5호의 사유와 기본적 사실관계의 동일성이 인정되지 않는다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether a public institution asked to disclose information may refuse disclosure by merely stating general grounds without asserting and proving that it falls under any of the grounds for non-disclosure provided in a certain subparagraph of Article 7 (1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (negative) [2] The legislative intent of not permitting, in appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, the assertion as grounds for the disposition of separate facts that are not identical with the original grounds for the disposition in their basic facts, and whether added or changed grounds may be regarded as identical with the original grounds for the disposition merely because they already existed at the time of the original disposition and the party also knew such fact (negative) [3] A case in which it was held that the grounds under Article 7 (1) 4 and 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, which were the original grounds for the refusal disposition refusing to disclose information, cannot be regarded as being identical in basic facts with the grounds under subparagraph 5 of the same paragraph newly added
Summary of the holding
[1] 공공기관의정보공개에관한법률 제1조, 제3조, 제6조는 국민의 알권리를 보장하고 국정에 대한 국민의 참여와 국정운영의 투명성을 확보하기 위하여 공공기관이 보유·관리하는 정보를 모든 국민에게 원칙적으로 공개하도록 하고 있으므로, 국민으로부터 보유·관리하는 정보에 대한 공개를 요구받은 공공기관으로서는 같은 법 제7조 제1항 각 호에서 정하고 있는 비공개사유에 해당하지 않는 한 이를 공개하여야 할 것이고, 만일 이를 거부하는 경우라 할지라도 대상이 된 정보의 내용을 구체적으로 확인·검토하여 어느 부분이 어떠한 법익 또는 기본권과 충돌되어 같은 법 제7조 제1항 몇 호에서 정하고 있는 비공개사유에 해당하는지를 주장·입증하여야만 할 것이며, 그에 이르지 아니한 채 개괄적인 사유만을 들어 공개를 거부하는 것은 허용되지 아니한다. [2] 행정처분의 취소를 구하는 항고소송에 있어서, 처분청은 당초 처분의 근거로 삼은 사유와 기본적 사실관계가 동일성이 있다고 인정되는 한도 내에서만 다른 사유를 추가하거나 변경할 수 있고, 여기서 기본적 사실관계의 동일성 유무는 처분사유를 법률적으로 평가하기 이전의 구체적인 사실에 착안하여 그 기초인 사회적 사실관계가 기본적인 점에서 동일한지 여부에 따라 결정되며 이와 같이 기본적 사실관계와 동일성이 인정되지 않는 별개의 사실을 들어 처분사유로 주장하는 것이 허용되지 않는다고 해석하는 이유는 행정처분의 상대방의 방어권을 보장함으로써 실질적 법치주의를 구현하고 행정처분의 상대방에 대한 신뢰를 보호하고자 함에 그 취지가 있고, 추가 또는 변경된 사유가 당초의 처분시 그 사유를 명기하지 않았을 뿐 처분시에 이미 존재하고 있었고 당사자도 그 사실을 알고 있었다 하여 당초의 처분사유와 동일성이 있는 것이라 할 수 없다. [3] 당초의 정보공개거부처분사유인 공공기관의정보공개에관한법률 제7조 제1항 제4호 및 제6호의 사유는 새로이 추가된 같은 항 제5호의 사유와 기본적 사실관계의 동일성이 없다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원으로 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 공공기관의정보공개에관한법률 제1조, 제3조, 제6조, 제7조 제1항 [2] 행정소송법 제1조[행정처분일반], 제19조, 제26조, 제27조[행정소송재판일반] [3] 공공기관의정보공개에관한법률 제7조 제1항 제4호, 제5호, 제6호
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger