The first-instance court ruled that the Ministry of Justice must disclose the expense of the lawyers appointed by the National Assembly in relation to the constitutional lawsuit filed in opposition to the so-called 'Complete Abolishment of Prosecutorial Investigation Rights Act' during the tenure of former Minister Han Dong-hoon. Previously, a ruling had been confirmed ordering the disclosure of the lawyers' expenses incurred by the Ministry of Justice at that time.
The 7th administrative division of the Seoul Administrative Court, presided over by Director General Lee Joo-young, ruled in favor of individual A on the 27th of last month, stating, 'the National Assembly Secretary General's refusal to disclose information on the constitutional court case is canceled.'
The Ministry of Justice filed a request for a dispute over authority with the Constitutional Court in June 2022 regarding the so-called 'Complete Abolishment of Prosecutorial Investigation Rights Act,' which was legislated under opposition leadership that year. The request asked the court to determine whether the National Assembly had overstepped its authority and infringed upon constitutional rights of prosecutors. In March of the following year, the Constitutional Court ruled that 'the possibility of infringing upon the constitutional rights of prosecutors through legislation cannot be recognized' and dismissed the case. At that time, the National Assembly appointed lawyer Noh Hee-beom, a former Constitutional Research Institute member, and the law firm Sangrok as representatives.
According to the ruling document, individual A requested the National Assembly disclose the lawyer's fees related to the dispute over authority regarding the Complete Abolishment of Prosecutorial Investigation Rights Act. However, the National Assembly argued that 'the information in question falls under the category of 'non-disclosable information' as defined by the Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Agencies' and rejected the request. In response, individual A filed a lawsuit in the Seoul Administrative Court.
The National Assembly claimed that the request for confidentiality regarding the fee information of lawyer Noh Hee-beom and the law firm Sangrok was justified, pointing out that the National Assembly publicly discloses expenditure amounts for lawyer fees annually.
However, the court stated, 'The constitutional court dispute related to this case concerns whether the actions of the National Assembly, a state institution, in amending laws infringe upon the authority of the Minister of Justice and prosecutors, making this case highly public in nature.' It added, 'Since the law firm's fees are a national budget expenditure, it is necessary to disclose the amount to ensure transparency and fairness.'
The court also noted, 'Individual A is only seeking to disclose the total amount of lawyer fees expended by the National Assembly, not the individual fees received by each representative,' stating that 'even if the information is disclosed, it would be difficult to argue that the representatives would be hindered in performing their duties.' The court concluded that 'this information does not fall under the category of non-disclosable information,' thus deeming the refusal to disclose unlawful. The ruling was finalized on the 11th as the National Assembly did not appeal.
Meanwhile, last year, there was a lawsuit requesting the disclosure of lawyer expense information from the Ministry of Justice related to the same dispute over authority case. The Ministry of Justice had appointed former Constitutional Court Justice Kang Il-won as their representative.
At that time, the first-instance court ruled that 'the dispute over authority is a matter where state institutions, like the Ministry of Justice, claim infringement of authority against another state institution, the National Assembly, and thus belongs to the public domain more than any other case,' and ordered the Ministry of Justice to disclose its lawyer expenses. The Ministry of Justice appealed the first-instance ruling but it was dismissed. Subsequently, the Ministry of Justice filed a final appeal, but the Supreme Court ruled against hearing it in January, thereby confirming the decision.