The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission must inform the petitioner about the status of processing the information disclosure request upon request.
The Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 11 (Director General Kim Jun-young) announced on the 6th that it ruled in May in favor of petitioner A in the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the refusal to disclose information against the commission.
Petitioner A submitted a grievance to the commission but did not receive a response, prompting them to file hundreds of information disclosure requests with the commission from 2022 to 2023.
The requested information reportedly included the name of the public official in charge of A's petition, the public official's working hours, travel details, currency records, and disciplinary records. A also requested the disclosure of the petition reception time, reception number, progress status, summary report, approval authority, and review time.
In February of last year, A filed another information disclosure request asking for details about their information disclosure request handler, reception date, reception number, and drafting and approval times.
The commission did not disclose the information and concluded A's request within two days. According to the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Act and the Civil Complaint Processing Act, repetitive inquiries can be concluded without separate responses. It was determined that A, unsatisfied with the handling of their grievance, continued to submit petitions in the form of information disclosure requests.
In response, A filed this administrative lawsuit. A argued that "the reason and basis for the non-disclosure decision were not specified, and it does not fall under the non-disclosure reasons according to the Information Disclosure Act."
The first-instance court ruled that the commission must disclose the reception date, reception number, and drafting and approval times of the information disclosure requests. The court stated, "A is asking for information regarding their own information disclosure request history" and noted, "They may want to confirm whether their information disclosure request was handled appropriately." The court also said, "It is insufficient to assume that A filed the information disclosure request solely to harass the commission's officials, and there is no evidence for that."