Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Circumstances in which an information disclosure claim constitutes an abuse of rights and is not permitted, and the test for that determination
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Dec. 24, 2014, 2014Du9349 (judgment)
Case name: 정보비공개결정처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Must an information disclosure claim that is made repeatedly, without any intention of accessing the information, in pursuit of the benefit of litigation costs or court appearances, also be permitted?
Holding
An information disclosure claim is broadly permitted unless the information is subject to non-disclosure, but it is not permitted where the abuse of rights is clear. The Supreme Court reversed the court below, which had not examined whether there was an abuse of rights, on the ground that there is considerable room to view the claim filed by the plaintiff, who was serving a sentence, as having been made for the purpose of pecuniary gain or avoidance of forced labor.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
실제로는 해당 정보를 취득 또는 활용할 의사가 전혀 없이 정보공개 제도를 이용하여 사회통념상 용인될 수 없는 부당한 이득을 얻으려 하거나, 오로지 공공기관의 담당공무원을 괴롭힐 목적으로 정보공개청구를 하는 경우처럼 권리의 남용에 해당하는 것이 명백한 경우에는 정보공개청구권의 행사를 허용하지 아니하는 것이 옳다.
Unofficial English translation
Where it is clear that it constitutes an abuse of right, as in cases where the requester has no intention whatsoever of acquiring or using the relevant information and, by using the information disclosure system, seeks to obtain an undue benefit that cannot be tolerated in light of social conventions, or where the request for information disclosure is made solely for the purpose of harassing the public official in charge of the public institution, it is right not to allow the exercise of the right to request information disclosure.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below in which the defendant lost is reversed, and
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
권리의 남용에 해당하는 것이 명백한 경우에는 정보공개청구권의 행사를 허용하지 아니하는 것이 옳다
Unofficial English translation
where it is clear that it constitutes an abuse of right, it is right not to allow the exercise of the right to request information disclosure
Factors
- 해당 정보를 취득 또는 활용할 의사가 전혀 없이
- 사회통념상 용인될 수 없는 부당한 이득을 얻으려 하거나
- 오로지 공공기관의 담당공무원을 괴롭힐 목적으로
- 실제 지출한 소송비용보다 다액을 소송비용으로 지급받아 금전적 이득을 취하거나
Unofficial English translation
• having no intention whatsoever of acquiring or using the relevant information
• seeking to obtain an undue benefit that cannot be tolerated in light of social conventions
• solely for the purpose of harassing the public official in charge of the public institution
• receiving litigation costs in an amount greater than the litigation costs actually incurred, thereby gaining a monetary benefit
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
정보공개법 제9조에 정한 비공개 대상 정보에 해당하지 아니하는 한 원칙적으로 폭넓게 허용되어야 하지만
Unofficial English translation
must in principle be broadly allowed unless it falls under information exempt from disclosure as provided in Article 9 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, but
Decisions referred to
None listed
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Even where the claimant has a history of actually receiving or utilizing some of the disclosed information, can an abuse of rights be found to be clear solely on the basis of repeated claims and the purpose of obtaining litigation costs?
This should be rechecked if a provision limiting improper or repeated claims is introduced into the Official Information Disclosure Act, or if further Supreme Court rulings on the requirements for an abuse of rights are handed down.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
In comparison with an independent reading by another lineage of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 7 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on Axis 6 (Relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
Because the original text sets out an exception standard for clear abuse of rights without clarifying its relation to precedent, the first reading may focus on the statement of a new standard, while the independent reading may note the absence of any basis on which the relation to precedent can be confirmed.
정보공개법 제9조에 정한 비공개 대상 정보에 해당하지 아니하는 한 원칙적으로 폭넓게 허용되어야 하지만Raw 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 part of the non-disclosure decision was unlawful on the grounds stated in its decision, without examining whether the information disclosure claim in this case constituted an abuse of rights. The specific basis on which the court below found it unlawful in its reasoning cannot be confirmed.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found an abuse of rights, relying on the facts that, while serving a sentence, the plaintiff repeated information disclosure claims several hundred times and did not receive the information even when disclosure decisions were made; that counsel effectively conducted no oral argument; on a statement that the litigation costs were to be divided with the attorney; on approximately 90 or more court appearances and the nonpayment of appearance expenses; and on a statement that this was an act that consumed administrative resources by the plaintiff's own doing. The Supreme Court, treating the court below's failure to deliberate on the existence of an abuse of rights as a misapprehension of legal principles and a failure to exhaust deliberations, reversed and remanded the portion of the judgment in which the defendant lost.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the claimant actually received the disclosed information and used it for relief of rights or administrative oversight
- Where, even though the claim was repeated, the information at issue and the reasons for the claim are specific and no circumstances revealing a pursuit of improper gain have emerged
- Where only the question of whether a ground for non-disclosure applies is in dispute and no material showing the purpose of the claim appears in the Records
Record verification notes
In order to reject a claim on the ground of abuse of rights, it must first be checked whether the Records contain specific circumstances showing the claimant's actual purpose, such as non-receipt of the information, an intention to obtain litigation costs, or the purpose of court appearances.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 국민의 정보공개청구가 권리의 남용에 해당하는 것이 명백한 경우, 정보공개청구권의 행사를 허용해야 하는지(소극) [2] 교도소에 복역 중인 갑이 지방검찰청 검사장에게 자신에 대한 불기소사건 수사기록 중 타인의 개인정보를 제외한 부분의 공개를 청구하였으나 검사장이 구 공공기관의 정보공개에 관한 법률 제9조 제1항 등에 규정된 비공개 대상 정보에 해당한다는 이유로 비공개 결정을 한 사안에서, 갑의 정보공개청구는 권리를 남용하는 행위로서 허용되지 않는다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Where it is clear that a person's request for information disclosure constitutes an abuse of right, whether the exercise of the right to request information disclosure should be allowed (negative) [2] In a case where A, who was serving a sentence in prison, requested the Chief Prosecutor of the District Prosecutors' Office to disclose the portion of the investigative records of a non-prosecution case concerning him, excluding the personal information of third parties, but the Chief Prosecutor made a decision not to disclose on the ground that it fell under information exempt from disclosure as provided in Article 9 (1) of the former Official Information Disclosure Act, a case holding that A's request for information disclosure was an act abusing a right and was therefore not allowed
Summary of the holding
[1] 일반적인 정보공개청구권의 의미와 성질, 구 공공기관의 정보공개에 관한 법률(2013. 8. 6. 법률 제11991호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘정보공개법’이라 한다) 제3조, 제5조 제1항, 제6조의 규정 내용과 입법 목적, 정보공개법이 정보공개청구권의 행사와 관련하여 정보의 사용 목적이나 정보에 접근하려는 이유에 관한 어떠한 제한을 두고 있지 아니한 점 등을 고려하면, 국민의 정보공개청구는 정보공개법 제9조에 정한 비공개 대상 정보에 해당하지 아니하는 한 원칙적으로 폭넓게 허용되어야 하지만, 실제로는 해당 정보를 취득 또는 활용할 의사가 전혀 없이 정보공개 제도를 이용하여 사회통념상 용인될 수 없는 부당한 이득을 얻으려 하거나, 오로지 공공기관의 담당공무원을 괴롭힐 목적으로 정보공개청구를 하는 경우처럼 권리의 남용에 해당하는 것이 명백한 경우에는 정보공개청구권의 행사를 허용하지 아니하는 것이 옳다. [2] 교도소에 복역 중인 갑이 지방검찰청 검사장에게 자신에 대한 불기소사건 수사기록 중 타인의 개인정보를 제외한 부분의 공개를 청구하였으나 검사장이 구 공공기관의 정보공개에 관한 법률(2013. 8. 6. 법률 제11991호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제9조 제1항 등에 규정된 비공개 대상 정보에 해당한다는 이유로 비공개 결정을 한 사안에서, 갑은 위 정보에 접근하는 것을 목적으로 정보공개를 청구한 것이 아니라, 청구가 거부되면 거부처분의 취소를 구하는 소송에서 승소한 뒤 소송비용 확정절차를 통해 자신이 그 소송에서 실제 지출한 소송비용보다 다액을 소송비용으로 지급받아 금전적 이득을 취하거나, 수감 중 변론기일에 출정하여 강제노역을 회피하는 것 등을 목적으로 정보공개를 청구하였다고 볼 여지가 큰 점 등에 비추어 갑의 정보공개청구는 권리를 남용하는 행위로서 허용되지 않는다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below in which the defendant lost is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 공공기관의 정보공개에 관한 법률(2013. 8. 6. 법률 제11991호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조, 제5조 제1항, 제6조 [2] 구 공공기관의 정보공개에 관한 법률(2013. 8. 6. 법률 제11991호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조, 제5조 제1항, 제6조, 제9조 제1항
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