정보공개소송에서의 처분사유의 추가·변경

Abstract

According to Administrative Procedures Act and Official Information Disclosure Act, every public institution shall, when it decides not to disclose information, promptly notify in writing the relevant applicant of the fact. In this case, the public institution shall specifically and explicitly indicate the grounds(basis and reasons) for deciding not to disclose the information. The Supreme Court has constantly upheld that it is not allowed to plead a new ground for disposition that does not share the identical fact relations with the original grounds for disposition in an appellate administrative action seeking revocation of disposition. And the original grounds for disposition, each item of Article 9(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act, are not identical in their factual relations to the newly added ground for disposition, any other item of the same Article. A final judgment revoking a disposition, etc. shall be binding on the parties, an administrative agency and other administrative agencies involved in the case. The Supreme Court has constantly upheld that an administrative agency may act differently in its later action as far as grounds for such action is different from those of the previous action, whereas the Court allows the agency to supplement and amend grounds for the agency's previous action in the corresponding hearing. In this article, the author claims that the Court, if it deems necessary, could and should investigate the evidence ex officio, and judge even such a fact that the party does not aver, for the once and final resolution of dispute and for the trust for judgment.