The second-instance court ruled that the Presidential Secretariat must disclose the list of affiliated public officials.


Seoul Central District Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Jinhyung Kang aymsdream@

Seoul Central District Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Jinhyung Kang aymsdream@

View original image

On the afternoon of the 23rd, the Administrative Division 6-1 of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judges Hwang Eui-dong, Wi Gwang-ha, Baek Seung-yeop) partially upheld the plaintiff's claim, as in the first trial, in the appeal case filed by activist Kang Seong-guk of the civic group Information Disclosure Center for Transparent Society against the Chief of the Presidential Secretariat, seeking cancellation of the refusal to disclose information.


Earlier, in June 2022, the Information Disclosure Center requested the Secretariat to disclose the department, name, position, and duties of all public officials working in the Secretariat. This was to dispel suspicions after it became known that the son of a businessman acquaintance, who was once close to President Yoon Seok-yeol and his wife, was working at the Presidential Office, sparking controversy over 'private recruitment.'


However, the Secretariat issued a partial disclosure decision notice, disclosing only information about public officials whose information had already been made public. The reason given was that disclosing the rest of the list could cause significant disruption to national interests or fair work performance due to lobbying, solicitations, or tangible and intangible pressures from interest groups. Dissatisfied with this, the Information Disclosure Center filed an administrative lawsuit.



The first-instance court ruled in favor of the Information Disclosure Center. At that time, the court stated, "Public officials other than those at the secretary level or above, whose names are disclosed by the Presidential Secretariat, also need to possess qualifications, abilities, and responsibility considering the nature and influence of their duties," and judged that "who these public officials are is a matter of public interest requiring monitoring and control, and disclosing this contributes to the public interest by guaranteeing the people's right to know and ensuring transparency of personnel composition."


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

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.

Today’s Briefing