Court: "Labor Inspector's Internal Report and Investigation Agency's Interview Records Must Be Disclosed"

A court ruling has been issued stating that information excluding personal identification details from the Labor Office's internal investigation reports and confrontation records related to wage arrears cases, police suspect interrogation records for criminal complaints, and prosecution investigation directives must be disclosed.

According to the legal community on the 8th, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 4 (Presiding Judge Kim Jeong-jung) recently ruled partially in favor of plaintiffs Choi and Jung in their lawsuits against the Seoul Gangnam Branch Chief of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office and the Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office Chief, respectively, seeking cancellation of information disclosure refusal decisions.

Seoul Administrative Court, Yangjae-dong, Seoul.
[Photo by Seoul Administrative Court]

The court ordered the cancellation of all non-disclosure decisions regarding the petition and the employer's opinion letter, investigation reports, internal investigation reports, and confrontation records prepared by the labor inspector that Choi requested to be disclosed.

In Jung's case, the court ruled to cancel the non-disclosure decision on parts of the police opinion letter, suspect interrogation records, investigation reports, investigation directive proposals, and prosecution investigation directives, excluding personal information such as names, resident registration numbers, occupations, addresses, contact details, and criminal records of Jung and other suspects.

However, the court dismissed the claims for damages of 1 million KRW each filed by Choi and Jung against the Republic of Korea, citing illegal acts by the defendants.

Choi, who filed a petition with the Seoul Gangnam Branch of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office due to unpaid wages and retirement pay but had the case closed citing 'no violation of law,' requested information disclosure regarding all records related to the petition case from the Gangnam Branch Chief.

However, the Gangnam Branch Chief issued a partial disclosure decision, releasing only the statements Choi made during the confrontation investigation. Other materials such as sales data submitted by the workplace, opinion letters, and internal investigation reports were withheld based on Article 9, Paragraph 1, Subparagraphs 4 and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act and the Ministry of Employment and Labor's regulations on information disclosure.

Article 9, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the Information Disclosure Act defines non-disclosable information as "information related to ongoing trials and matters concerning crime prevention, investigation, prosecution, maintenance, execution of sentences, correction, and security measures, where disclosure would significantly hinder official duties or infringe on the criminal defendant's right to a fair trial."

The same paragraph's Subparagraph 7 defines non-disclosable information as "matters concerning corporate, organizational, or individual business or trade secrets, where disclosure is likely to significantly harm the legitimate interests of the corporation or organization."

Jung, who had filed complaints against three people for fraud but was cleared by the prosecution due to insufficient evidence, requested disclosure of all records related to the complaint case. However, the Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office Chief denied disclosure of materials other than Jung's statement, submitted documents, and non-prosecution decision documents, citing Article 9, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 6 of the Information Disclosure Act.

Subparagraph 6 excludes personal information such as names and resident registration numbers from disclosure if disclosure is likely to infringe on privacy or freedom, except in cases where the law permits viewing.

In court, the plaintiffs argued that "the requested information does not fall under the non-disclosure reasons stipulated by the Information Disclosure Act, yet the Gangnam Branch Chief and Prosecutor General made non-disclosure decisions, making the decisions illegal."

Regarding the claims for damages against the Republic of Korea, they argued, "Refusing disclosure of all investigation records citing only general reasons is not permitted according to the Supreme Court's firm precedent. The refusal violated the officials' intentional or negligent duties, infringing on the plaintiffs' right to know, right to request a trial, and pursuit of happiness, thus the Republic of Korea is obligated to compensate for the plaintiffs' non-property damages."

Regarding Choi's claim, the Gangnam Branch Chief added Article 9, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 6 as a reason for non-disclosure during the trial. However, the court rejected this, stating that the initial reasons under Subparagraphs 4 and 7 and Subparagraph 6 do not share the same basic facts.

The court cited a Supreme Court ruling to reject the non-disclosure reason related to "matters concerning investigation" (Subparagraph 4).

The Supreme Court previously stated, "The purpose of this provision is to prevent disclosure of investigation methods and procedures that would cause significant difficulties in the performance of investigative duties. Opinion letters, reports, and internal investigation materials in investigation records are not automatically considered non-disclosable. The substantive content must be examined to determine if disclosure would significantly hinder investigative duties."

The court judged, "Although the information includes summons and internal investigation reports containing information about investigation methods or procedures, it does not include content that would significantly hinder investigative duties if disclosed to the public, such as affecting future crime prevention, information gathering, or investigation activities. Therefore, the information does not fall under non-disclosable information under Article 9, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the Information Disclosure Act."

Additionally, the court found that company information disputed by Choi regarding wage payments does not fall under non-disclosable information under Article 9, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

The court reasoned that information recorded in financial statements generally does not constitute corporate business or trade secrets unless special circumstances exist, corporate registration documents are prepared for public disclosure, and confrontation records or employer opinion letters do not contain content that could be considered business secrets.

Regarding the information Jung requested, the court applied Supreme Court precedent stating that when administrative agencies refuse disclosure, they must separate parts that fall under non-disclosure reasons from those that do not, and disclose the latter. The court concluded that information excluding personal identification details among the non-disclosed information must be disclosed.

The court explained, "Information excluding personal identification details includes suspect interrogation records where suspects deny allegations, materials submitted to support their claims, documents reporting investigation results and proposing directives, and prosecutors' opinions on appeals and hearing records containing appellants' opinions. Disclosure is unlikely to cause significant harm to the life, body, or property of related parties or reveal intimate personal secrets that would interfere with personal or mental inner life. Meanwhile, the benefit of disclosing such information for individual rights protection is greater."

However, while recognizing that the Gangnam Branch Chief and Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office Chief's non-disclosure decisions violated the Information Disclosure Act, the court did not accept Choi and Jung's claims for damages against the Republic of Korea.

The court stated, "Even if some parts of the decisions are ultimately deemed illegal, the defendants, as diligent average public officials, did not breach their objective duty of care to an extent that would justify holding the Republic of Korea liable for damages."

Park Jin-sik, a lawyer from the law firm Between representing the two plaintiffs in this trial, said, "For over 20 years, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that all investigation records except personal information must be disclosed, yet national institutions such as local prosecutors' offices continue to repeatedly violate these precedents without reasonable grounds." He added, "The wrongful practices of national institutions must be corrected."

He further noted, "Especially, information disclosure refusal cancellation lawsuits, which used to take about six to eight months to receive information previously subjected to non-disclosure decisions through litigation, now take over a year, highlighting the urgent need for improvement."

Lawyer Park said, "To improve these practices, symbolic claims for 1 million KRW in state compensation have been filed against the Republic of Korea but have been repeatedly dismissed. Some lower court rulings have recognized state compensation liability when administrative agencies persistently made illegal administrative decisions contrary to established legal interpretations conveyed through superior administrative agencies' guidelines. Therefore, courts need to actively order state compensation to correct these wrongful practices."

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