The names and titles of police officers working in a police audit and inspection office are also subject to information disclosure, a court has ruled.
According to legal circles Wednesday, the First Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (presiding judge Yang Sang-yoon) ruled in favor of the plaintiff in April in a lawsuit filed by a person identified as A against the head of the Seoul Gwanak Police Station seeking to cancel a decision on information disclosure.
Around November 2024, A filed a request with the Gwanak Police Station seeking disclosure of the organization chart of the Audit, Inspection and Human Rights Office, along with the names, titles, and ranks of each person in charge. In December of the same year, the Gwanak Police Station declined to disclose the information, citing concerns over infringement of personal information. A then filed an administrative lawsuit, arguing that the information was “necessary for the public’s monitoring and control to guarantee the public’s right to know and to ensure transparency in personnel composition.”
The court sided with A. “The audit and inspection office is an agency that carries out civil complaint counseling and grievance resolution, and its officers need to possess high qualifications and accountability in light of the content and influence of their duties,” the court said. “Who works in the audit office and what duties they handle is a matter of public interest requiring the public’s monitoring and control.” The court determined that disclosing the officers’ names would contribute significantly to the public interest, including by guaranteeing the public’s right to know and enhancing the transparency and fairness of their work.
The court also explained that the disclosure of information requested by A was not something that would undermine the fairness or independence of work within the organization. “The police station’s organization chart and the phone numbers of relevant departments are already disclosed through the website and other channels,” the court noted. “It is difficult to see that additional disclosure of information would undermine the personnel operations of the audit office or the fairness and independence of its work.”
The court further ruled that “the information does not include details allowing direct contact with individual officers, such as personal phone numbers or email addresses.” It added, “Even if the information is disclosed, it is difficult to conclude that the officers would be highly likely to be exposed to undue external influence such as lobbying, threats, or malicious complaints.”