Court: Personal Information of Judicial Researcher Involved in Supreme Court Ruling Not Subject to Disclosure

Seoul Administrative Court, Yangjae-dong, Seoul. / Photo by Seoul Administrative Court

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] A court ruling has determined that personal information of judicial research officers involved in Supreme Court rulings is not subject to disclosure.

On the 28th, according to the court, the Administrative Division 13 of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Park Jeong-dae) recently ruled against plaintiff Song Mo in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the refusal to disclose information filed against the Court Administration Office.

The court stated, "The provision in the Court Organization Act that does not disclose the deliberation of judgments is interpreted as intending to guarantee judicial independence by blocking exposure of matters related to the deliberation process conducted within the bench for forming and unifying judicial conviction."

It continued, "Judicial research officers assist Supreme Court justices in forming their judicial conviction, and the personal information of such judicial research officers indicates the process by which the justice referred to the research officer’s review opinions during deliberation to form their conviction, thus this too is information related to deliberation."

The court further noted, "Judicial research officers cannot help but worry about the risk of personal criticism simply by considering the possibility that their personal information related to cases they reviewed might be disclosed," and "if this information is disclosed, it is likely to cause significant obstacles to judicial research officers fairly reviewing cases according to their conscience."

Additionally, the court added, "Judicial research officers only report the results of case reviews to the justices, and the justices are the ones who establish the rulings," and "even if the personal information of judicial research officers is not disclosed, it cannot be said that the transparency of judicial procedures is particularly impaired."

Article 65 (Non-disclosure of Deliberations) of the Court Organization Act states, "Deliberations of judgments shall not be disclosed."

Previously, lawyer Song, after appealing to the Supreme Court regarding a case he was handling, received a dismissal without oral argument in July last year, and requested disclosure of the names, positions, and other personal information of the Supreme Court judicial research officers involved in the ruling.

Dismissal without oral argument is a system in which, in trials other than criminal cases, when there is no significant legal violation or other grounds for appeal as stipulated by law, the Supreme Court dismisses the appeal without substantive review under the Special Act on Appeal Procedures.

The Court Administration Office refused Song’s request based on the Court Organization Act, which prohibits disclosure of matters related to deliberation procedures, and the Information Disclosure Act, which prohibits disclosure of information that could significantly hinder fair performance of duties.

In response, Song filed a lawsuit against the Court Administration Office seeking cancellation of the refusal to disclose information, but the court did not accept the claim.

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