Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Treating a financial regulator's files as official documents in production orders
Supreme Court, Apr. 25, 2024, 2023Ma8009 (ruling)
Case name: 손해배상(국)[문서제출명령에대한재항고][금융감독원 직원이 직무상 작성하여 관리하는 문서가 제출을 거부할 수 있는 문서에 해당하는지 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Do documents written and managed in the line of duty by an employee of the Financial Supervisory Service have to be treated in the same way as documents that a public official may refuse to produce under Article 344(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, so that the holder may refuse production and their disclosure is decided under the procedure and method set by the Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Agencies?
Holding
Yes, by analogy. Article 344(2) allows a holder to refuse production, as an exception, of documents a public official or former public official keeps in relation to official duty, and that expression means public documents held and managed by a state organ, whose disclosure must follow the procedure and method of the Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Agencies. The Financial Supervisory Service is a special corporation without capital set up under the Act on the Establishment of the Financial Services Commission, is a public agency under the Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Agencies, and may handle matters of capital market supervision under delegated authority, so documents its employees write and manage in the line of duty must be treated in the same way as such official documents, and the holder may refuse production.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 금융감독원 직원이 직무상 작성하여 관리하고 있는 문서는 민사소송법 제344조 제2항이 적용되는 문서 중 예외적으로 제출을 거부할 수 있는 ‘공무원 또는 공무원이었던 사람이 그 직무와 관련하여 보관하거나 가지고 있는 문서’에 준하여 정보공개법에서 정한 절차와 방법에 의하여 공개 여부가 결정될 필요가 있고, 문서의 소지자는 그 제출을 거부할 수 있다고 할 것이다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, documents that an employee of the Financial Supervisory Service has prepared and manages in the course of his or her duties are analogous to the documents to which Article 344 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act applies and as to which submission may exceptionally be refused, that is, 'documents kept or possessed by a public official or a former public official in connection with his or her duties,' and it needs to be determined whether they are to be disclosed in accordance with the procedure and method prescribed in the Official Information Disclosure Act, and the possessor of the document may refuse to submit it.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
여기서 말하는 ‘공무원 또는 공무원이었던 사람이 그 직무와 관련하여 보관하거나 가지고 있는 문서’란 국가기관이 보유·관리하는 공문서를 의미하고, 이러한 공문서의 공개는 공공기관의 정보공개에 관한 법률(이하 ‘정보공개법’이라고 한다)에서 정한 절차와 방법으로 하여야 할 것이다.
Unofficial English translation
The 'documents kept or possessed by a public official or a former public official in connection with his or her duties' referred to herein mean official documents possessed and managed by state agencies, and the disclosure of such official documents must be made by the procedure and method prescribed in the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Official Information Disclosure Act').
Factors
- 문서의 소지자는 원칙적으로 그 제출을 거부하지 못하나
- 국가기관이 보유·관리하는 공문서를 의미하고
- 무자본 특수법인으로 중앙행정기관인 금융위원회 등의 권한을 위탁받아 자본시장의 관리·감독 및 감시 등에 관한 사항에 대한 업무를 처리할 수 있다
- 금융감독원은 특별법에 따라 설립된 특수법인으로서 정보공개법에서 정한 공공기관에 해당하고
- 문서의 소지자는 그 제출을 거부할 수 있다고 할 것이다
Unofficial English translation
• In principle, the possessor of a document may not refuse to submit it, but
• it means official documents possessed and managed by state agencies, and
• as a special corporation without capital, it may be entrusted with the authority of the Financial Services Commission, a central administrative agency, and other such bodies, and may handle work concerning matters such as the administration, supervision, and surveillance of the capital market
• the Financial Supervisory Service is a special corporation established pursuant to a special Act and falls under a public institution prescribed in the Official Information Disclosure Act, and
• the possessor of the document may refuse to submit it
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2010. 1. 19. 자 2008마546 결정(공2010상, 334)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2008Ma546 decided January 19, 2010 (Gong 2010 Sang, 334)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2010. 1. 19. 자 2008마546 결정(공2010상, 334)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the Financial Supervisory Service refuses an information disclosure request for the same documents, may a court still order their production in a civil case, or must the disclosure route be exhausted first?
The renewed hearing on remand by the Seoul Central District Court, in case 2022Na73538, will show how the refusal is weighed against the need for proof in the damages action. Any amendment to Article 344(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, to Article 2(3)(m) of the Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Agencies or its Enforcement Decree Article 2(iv), or a later decision treating a special corporation differently, requires this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the Financial Supervisory Service refuses an information disclosure request for the same documents, may a court still order their production in a civil case, or must the disclosure route be exhausted first?” vs Independent “Would the requested documents ultimately be disclosable under the Information Disclosure Act?”
The primary reading asks whether a court may still order production after the Financial Supervisory Service refuses an information request for the same documents. The independent reading asks whether the documents are ultimately disclosable under the Information Disclosure Act.
따라서 금융감독원 직원이 직무상 작성하여 관리하고 있는 문서는 민사소송법 제344조 제2항이 적용되는 문서 중 예외적으로 제출을 거부할 수 있는 ‘공무원 또는 공무원이었던 사람이 그 직무와 관련하여 보관하거나 가지고 있는 문서’에 준하여 정보공개법에서 정한 절차와 방법에 의하여 공개 여부가 결정될 필요가 있고, 문서의 소지자는 그 제출을 거부할 수 있다고 할 것이다.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 applicant applied to the Seoul Central District Court for a production order requiring the respondent to produce documents showing the activities of the Financial Supervisory Service's special complaint response team and special complaint review committee, such as minutes and approval papers. The court below, in its ruling of 4 December 2023 (2022Na73538), accepted the applicant's claim and ordered the respondent to produce those documents.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misapprehended the law on production orders and that the error affected the outcome, because the documents had to be treated in the same way as official documents whose disclosure follows the Information Disclosure Act. It reversed the ruling below and remanded the matter to the Seoul Central District Court for renewed hearing and decision, on the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices, without addressing the remaining grounds of the re-appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Documents that an employee of the Financial Supervisory Service did not write or manage in the line of duty, since the treatment turns on the official character of the file.
- Documents held by a private party with no equivalent standing to public documents held and managed by a state organ, since the exception covers documents an official keeps in relation to duty.
- An application for a production order where the holder raises no refusal under Article 344(2), since the exception operates only when it is invoked.
Record verification notes
Establish first whether the specific document was written or obtained in the official duties of a Financial Supervisory Service employee and is managed as a public document, since that is the fact the rule rests on. Then check whether an information disclosure request under the Act has been made and refused, because the Court held that disclosure must follow that Act's procedure and method. Note also that the Court decided only the ground it needed and left the other grounds of the re-appeal unexamined.
From the official text
Points at issue
문서의 제출을 거부할 수 있는 예외사유로서 민사소송법 제344조 제2항에서 정한 ‘공무원 또는 공무원이었던 사람이 그 직무와 관련하여 보관하거나 가지고 있는 문서’의 의미(=국가기관이 보유·관리하는 공문서) 및 이러한 공문서의 공개는 공공기관의 정보공개에 관한 법률에서 정한 절차와 방법으로 하여야 하는지 여부(적극) / 금융감독원 직원이 직무상 작성하여 관리하고 있는 문서가 이에 준하여 공개 여부가 결정되어야 하는지 여부(적극) 및 문서의 소지자는 그 제출을 거부할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
The meaning of 'documents kept or possessed by a public official or a former public official in connection with his or her duties,' prescribed in Article 344 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, as an exceptional ground on which submission may be refused (= official documents possessed and managed by state agencies), and whether the disclosure of such official documents must be made by the procedure and method prescribed in the Official Information Disclosure Act (affirmative) / Whether documents that an employee of the Financial Supervisory Service has prepared and manages in the course of his or her duties must have the question of their disclosure determined on an equivalent basis (affirmative), and whether the possessor of the document may refuse to submit it (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
민사소송법 제344조 제2항은 같은 조 제1항에서 정한 문서에 해당하지 아니한 문서라도 문서의 소지자는 원칙적으로 그 제출을 거부하지 못하나, 다만 ‘공무원 또는 공무원이었던 사람이 그 직무와 관련하여 보관하거나 가지고 있는 문서’는 예외적으로 제출을 거부할 수 있다고 규정하고 있다. 여기서 말하는 ‘공무원 또는 공무원이었던 사람이 그 직무와 관련하여 보관하거나 가지고 있는 문서’란 국가기관이 보유·관리하는 공문서를 의미하고, 이러한 공문서의 공개는 공공기관의 정보공개에 관한 법률(이하 ‘정보공개법’이라고 한다)에서 정한 절차와 방법으로 하여야 할 것이다. 한편 금융감독원은 금융위원회나 증권선물위원회의 지도·감독을 받아 금융기관에 대한 검사·감독 업무 등을 수행하기 위하여 금융위원회의 설치 등에 관한 법률에 의하여 설립된 무자본 특수법인으로 중앙행정기관인 금융위원회 등의 권한을 위탁받아 자본시장의 관리·감독 및 감시 등에 관한 사항에 대한 업무를 처리할 수 있다. 또한 정보공개법 제2조 제3호 (마)목, 공공기관의 정보공개에 관한 법률 시행령 제2조 제4호에 의하면, 금융감독원은 특별법에 따라 설립된 특수법인으로서 정보공개법에서 정한 공공기관에 해당하고, 금융감독원이 직무상 작성 또는 취득하여 관리하고 있는 문서에 대하여는 정보공개법이 적용된다. 따라서 금융감독원 직원이 직무상 작성하여 관리하고 있는 문서는 민사소송법 제344조 제2항이 적용되는 문서 중 예외적으로 제출을 거부할 수 있는 ‘공무원 또는 공무원이었던 사람이 그 직무와 관련하여 보관하거나 가지고 있는 문서’에 준하여 정보공개법에서 정한 절차와 방법에 의하여 공개 여부가 결정될 필요가 있고, 문서의 소지자는 그 제출을 거부할 수 있다고 할 것이다.
Order
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Provisions referred to
민사소송법 제344조 제2항, 공공기관의 정보공개에 관한 법률 제2조 제3호 (마)목, 공공기관의 정보공개에 관한 법률 시행령 제2조 제4호, 금융위원회의 설치 등에 관한 법률 제24조, 제37조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. 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