Court: "Gimusa Collected Personnel Policy Information on 'Moon Jae-in Camp' During 2017 Presidential Election"

The Center for Military Human Rights Partially Wins Information Disclosure Lawsuit Against the Defense Security Support Command (Formerly GIMUSA)

Main Building of the Military Security Support Command, Gwacheon, Gyeonggi-do / Photo by Joint Press Corps

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A court ruling has found that the Defense Security Command collected information on then-candidate Moon Jae-in's personnel policies ahead of the 2017 presidential election.

According to the legal community on the 1st, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 6 (Presiding Judge Lee Jooyoung) partially ruled in favor of the plaintiff in an information disclosure lawsuit filed by the Military Human Rights Center against the commander of the Defense Security Support Command (formerly the Defense Security Command).

The Military Human Rights Center claimed that ahead of the 2017 presidential election, the Defense Security Command illegally surveilled the presidential campaign and opposition politicians, and requested information disclosure from the Defense Security Support Command. After the request was denied, they filed an administrative lawsuit. On the other hand, the Defense Security Support Command argued that the information was "related to national security" and maintained the decision to withhold disclosure.

The court found that among the 42 reports the Military Human Rights Center requested to be disclosed, nine reports including 'Comprehensive suspicions of Choi Soon-sil's involvement related to the military,' 'Media reports on suspicions of Choi Soon-sil's military involvement,' 'Recent conservative security group activities,' and 'Rumors about Moon Jae-in considering a civilian defense minister' had no grounds for non-disclosure and ordered the cancellation of the non-disclosure decision.

The court explained, "These pieces of information do not appear to contain matters specifically related to national security, defense, unification, or diplomatic relations," and "It is also difficult to see that disclosure would harm the nation's significant interests." However, the court upheld the non-disclosure decision for the remaining 33 reports, recognizing that most were created for the purpose of analyzing information related to national security.

The Military Human Rights Center stated, "It was confirmed that the Defense Security Command surveilled the presidential campaign and civilians unrelated to its original mission, monitored political trends, and that all targets were focused on the then-opposition party," and demanded, "The Defense Security Support Command should immediately disclose the nine documents for which non-disclosure cancellation was decided without appeal." It is reported that they intend to appeal the non-disclosure decision on the 33 documents deemed justifiable for withholding.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.