Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Whether Minutes After Decision-Making Is Complete Constitute Information Subject to Non-Disclosure, and Non-Disclosure of Speakers' Personal Information
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Aug. 22, 2003, 2002Du12946 (judgment)
Case name: 정보공개거부처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May the minutes of a committee meeting held after the decision has already been made also constitute information subject to non-disclosure under the Official Information Disclosure Act?
Holding
Minutes produced after decision-making has been completed are not, strictly speaking, matters in the course of the decision-making process itself, but as matters equivalent thereto they may be included in information subject to non-disclosure. The Supreme Court upheld the court below, which held that the portion of the minutes of the School Environment Sanitation and Purification Committee containing the speakers' personal information is subject to non-disclosure, since there are substantial reasons to believe that disclosure would cause a significant impediment to the fair performance of deliberative duties.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
의사결정과정에 제공된 회의관련자료나 의사결정과정이 기록된 회의록 등은 의사가 결정되거나 의사가 집행된 경우에는 더 이상 의사결정과정에 있는 사항 그 자체라고는 할 수 없으나, 의사결정과정에 있는 사항에 준하는 사항으로서 비공개대상정보에 포함될 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
Meeting-related materials provided in the course of decision-making, or minutes recording the decision-making process, although, where a decision has been made or a decision has been executed, they can no longer be regarded as matters in the course of decision-making themselves, may be included in non-disclosable information as matters equivalent to matters in the course of decision-making.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
해당 발언자의 인적사항 부분에 관한 정보는 공공기관의정보공개에관한법률 제7조 제1항 제5호 소정의 비공개대상에 해당한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
A case holding that information concerning the personal details of the speaker falls within the non-disclosable information under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act
Factors
- 의사결정과정에 있는 사항에 준하는 사항
- 업무의 공정한 수행이 객관적으로 현저하게 지장을 받을 것이라는 고도의 개연성
- 비공개에 의하여 보호되는 업무수행의 공정성 등의 이익
- 국민의 알권리의 보장과 국정에 대한 국민의 참여 및 국정운영의 투명성 확보 등의 이익
Unofficial English translation
• matters equivalent to matters in the course of decision-making
• a high degree of probability that the fair performance of work will objectively and significantly be impeded
• interests such as the fairness of the performance of work protected by non-disclosure
• interests such as the guarantee of the people's right to know, the people's participation in state affairs, and the securing of transparency in the operation of state affairs
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2003. 3. 14. 선고 2000두6114 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2000Du6114 decided March 14, 2003
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2000. 5. 30. 선고 99추85 판결(공2000하, 1547), 대법원 2003. 5. 16. 선고 2001두4702 판결 / [2] 대법원 2003. 3. 14. 선고 2000두6114 판결(공2003상, 1003)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
In cases where the benefits of the right to know and of transparency protected by disclosure of the minutes are particularly great, may there be cases in which the speakers' personal information must also be disclosed?
If the provision of the Official Information Disclosure Act on information subject to non-disclosure is amended, or if a decision takes a different view of the scope of disclosure of minutes and of speaker information, this reading will be re-examined.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
In comparison with an independent reading by another family of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, 6 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on Axis 4 (Form of the test) and Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Existing test applied” vs Independent “Circumstances weighed”
Because the original text sets out both the standard of comparison between the benefits of disclosure and of non-disclosure and the conclusion of non-disclosure of the speakers' personal information, the primary reading may attend to the concrete application, while the independent reading may attend to the balancing of interests.
구체적인 사안에 따라 신중하게 판단되어야 한다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “In cases where the benefits of the right to know and of transparency protected by disclosure of the minutes are particularly great, may there be cases in which the speakers' personal information must also be disclosed?” vs Independent “Up to what scope must the content of the remarks in the minutes, excluding the speakers' personal information, be disclosed?”
The primary reading asks whether the speakers' personal information may also be disclosed where the benefits of disclosure are great, whereas the independent reading asks the scope of disclosure of the content of the remarks excluding the personal information.
의사결정과정에 제공된 회의관련자료나 의사결정과정이 기록된 회의록 등은 의사가 결정되거나 의사가 집행된 경우에는 더 이상 의사결정과정에 있는 사항 그 자체라고는 할 수 없으나, 의사결정과정에 있는 사항에 준하는 사항으로서 비공개대상정보에 포함될 수 있다.Raw 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 (Seoul High Court, 2001Nu10846) held that the minutes of the Purification Committee concerning the decision to lift the prohibition on lodging facilities, being a record made after the fact of a deliberation procedure that had already concluded, are not matters in the course of the decision-making process itself, but are matters equivalent thereto. It further found that, if not only the content of the remarks but also the speakers' personal information were disclosed, there would be a concern that the members, under psychological pressure, would be unable to engage in a free exchange of views or would cater to outside opinion, and therefore that there were substantial reasons to believe that disclosure of that portion would cause a significant impediment to the fair performance of deliberative duties.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court confirmed the legal principle concerning the illustrative enumeration of information subject to non-disclosure and the meaning of a significant impediment, and, regarding the determination of the court below as justified, dismissed all of the appellants' final appeals.
Distinguishing conditions
- Cases in which what is at issue is disclosure of the outcome of the decision or of the content of the final disposition itself, rather than the minutes
- Cases in which what is at issue is whether the content of the remarks, rather than the speakers' personal information, should be disclosed
- Cases of meetings in which there is no high degree of probability that the members' free exchange of views would be chilled even if disclosure were made
Record verification notes
Before contesting the non-disclosure of minutes, one should separate whether the portion sought to be disclosed is the content of the remarks or the speakers' personal information, check whether the decision-making has been completed, and confirm concretely what the benefits of the right to know and of transparency gained by disclosure are.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 의사결정과정에 제공된 회의관련자료나 의사결정과정이 기록된 회의록 등이 공공기관의정보공개에관한법률 제7조 제1항 제5호 소정의 '의사결정과정에 있는 사항'에 준하는 사항으로서 비공개대상정보에 해당되는지 여부(적극) [2] 공공기관의정보공개에관한법률 제7조 제1항 제5호 소정의 '공개될 경우 업무의 공정한 수행에 현저한 지장을 초래한다고 인정할 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 경우'의 의미 및 그에 해당하는지 여부에 대한 판단 기준 [3] 학교환경위생구역 내 금지행위(숙박시설) 해제결정에 관한 학교환경위생정화위원회의 회의록에 기재된 발언내용에 대한 해당 발언자의 인적사항 부분에 관한 정보는 공공기관의정보공개에관한법률 제7조 제1항 제5호 소정의 비공개대상에 해당한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether meeting-related materials provided in the course of decision-making, or minutes recording the decision-making process, constitute matters equivalent to "matters in the course of decision-making" as used in Article 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act and therefore fall within non-disclosable information (affirmative) [2] Criteria for determining the meaning of "cases where there is a substantial reason to recognize that disclosure would cause a significant impediment to the fair performance of work" as used in Article 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, and whether such a case exists [3] A case holding that information concerning the personal details of the speaker, appearing in the portion of the minutes of the School Environment Sanitation Deliberation Committee concerning the decision to lift the prohibition on acts (lodging facilities) within the school environment sanitation zone, falls within the non-disclosable information under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act
Summary of the holding
[1] 공공기관의정보공개에관한법률상 비공개대상정보의 입법 취지에 비추어 살펴보면, 같은 법 제7조 제1항 제5호에서의 '감사·감독·검사·시험·규제·입찰계약·기술개발·인사관리·의사결정과정 또는 내부검토과정에 있는 사항'은 비공개대상정보를 예시적으로 열거한 것이라고 할 것이므로 의사결정과정에 제공된 회의관련자료나 의사결정과정이 기록된 회의록 등은 의사가 결정되거나 의사가 집행된 경우에는 더 이상 의사결정과정에 있는 사항 그 자체라고는 할 수 없으나, 의사결정과정에 있는 사항에 준하는 사항으로서 비공개대상정보에 포함될 수 있다. [2] 공공기관의정보공개에관한법률 제7조 제1항 제5호에서 규정하고 있는 '공개될 경우 업무의 공정한 수행에 현저한 지장을 초래한다고 인정할 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 경우'라 함은 같은 법 제1조의 정보공개제도의 목적 및 같은 법 제7조 제1항 제5호의 규정에 의한 비공개대상정보의 입법 취지에 비추어 볼 때 공개될 경우 업무의 공정한 수행이 객관적으로 현저하게 지장을 받을 것이라는 고도의 개연성이 존재하는 경우를 의미한다고 할 것이고, 여기에 해당하는지 여부는 비공개에 의하여 보호되는 업무수행의 공정성 등의 이익과 공개에 의하여 보호되는 국민의 알권리의 보장과 국정에 대한 국민의 참여 및 국정운영의 투명성 확보 등의 이익을 비교·교량하여 구체적인 사안에 따라 신중하게 판단되어야 한다. [3] 학교환경위생구역 내 금지행위(숙박시설) 해제결정에 관한 학교환경위생정화위원회의 회의록에 기재된 발언내용에 대한 해당 발언자의 인적사항 부분에 관한 정보는 공공기관의정보공개에관한법률 제7조 제1항 제5호 소정의 비공개대상에 해당한다고 한 사례.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The plaintiffs shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Provisions referred to
[1] 공공기관의정보공개에관한법률 제7조 제1항 제5호 [2] 공공기관의정보공개에관한법률 제1조, 제7조 제1항 제5호 [3] 학교보건법 제5조, 제6조, 학교보건법시행령 제3조, 제4조, 제4조의2, 제4조의3, 공공기관의정보공개에관한법률 제1조, 제7조 제1항 제5호
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