Court: "Gangnam-gu Office Must Disclose Investigation Data on Fraudulent Benefits Except for Confidential Information"

Court: "Disclosure of materials without personal privacy or intimate areas does not infringe on freedom"

A court ruling has been issued stating that information investigated by local governments regarding suspicions of fraudulent receipt of Basic Livelihood Security benefits, which does not fall under the category of non-disclosable information under the Information Disclosure Act, must be disclosed.

The Administrative Division 2 of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Shin Myung-hee) announced on the 24th that it ruled partially in favor of plaintiff A in a lawsuit filed against the Mayor of Gangnam-gu, Seoul, seeking cancellation of the refusal to disclose information.

In January 2021, A reported B to the National Integrity Commission, suspecting B of fraudulently receiving Basic Livelihood Security benefits under the National Basic Livelihood Security Act. In February of the following year, A filed a similar report again with the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, but after two investigations, Gangnam-gu Office concluded that there was no fraudulent receipt.

Subsequently, A requested Gangnam-gu Office to disclose materials related to the investigation of the case, but when Gangnam-gu Office refused disclosure citing concerns over invasion of privacy or freedom, A filed a lawsuit.

The court found that information related to the receipt of Basic Livelihood Security benefits, workplaces involved with the reported person, or the financial and consumption status of the reported person could infringe on privacy. However, the court ruled that materials related to B’s social activities requested by A, requests for handling corruption reports, and confirmation investigation requests related to reports of suspected fraudulent receipt must be disclosed.

The court stated, “(Some of the materials requested by A) do not include content related to an individual’s private life or intimate areas, or even if disclosed, it is difficult to consider that it would infringe on the secrecy or freedom of privacy.”

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