A lawsuit demanding the disclosure of meal and movie expenses incurred during Yoon Suk Yeol's presidency has seen a ruling from the lower courts overturned by the Supreme Court. The issue arose not from the classification of the information as confidential, but rather from the transfer of related documents to the Presidential Archives following Yoon's impeachment, raising questions about the legal standing of continuing the lawsuit against the presidential office.
According to legal sources on August 7, the Supreme Court's third division, led by Justice Roh Kyung-pil, overturned the lower court's ruling that favored the plaintiff in a case filed by the Korean Taxpayers Alliance against the presidential chief of staff regarding the refusal to disclose information. The case has been sent back to the Seoul High Court for further consideration.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the information disclosure system mandates public institutions to disclose information they currently possess and manage. If the requested information is no longer held by the institution, there is generally no legal basis for seeking the cancellation of a refusal to disclose.
In this case, the situation changed after Yoon was impeached on April 4, 2022, and the relevant documents were transferred to the Presidential Archives on June 4, 2022, when President Yoon Suk Yeol took office.
The Supreme Court noted, "There is sufficient reason to believe that the information requested by the Taxpayers Alliance is no longer held by the presidential chief of staff due to its transfer to the Presidential Archives." It added that there is a need to reassess whether the legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the refusal to disclose has been extinguished.
As a result, the remanded trial will need to determine whether the presidential office currently possesses the requested information and whether the Taxpayers Alliance still has a legal interest in pursuing the lawsuit.
However, the Supreme Court did not rule that the meal and movie expenses themselves are confidential, unlike the lower courts. While the lower courts had previously assessed the necessity of disclosure, the change in circumstances following the transfer to the Presidential Archives influenced the outcome of the ruling.
This lawsuit began when the Taxpayers Alliance requested the disclosure of the presidential office's budget execution details in 2022.
The Taxpayers Alliance sought the disclosure of four items from the presidential office: details of special activity expenses, operational expenses, the cost of a dinner Yoon had at a restaurant in Seoul, and the movie expenses incurred by Yoon and his wife.
The requested disclosures included the dinner cost reportedly incurred by Yoon on May 13, 2022, at a Korean restaurant in Gangnam, and the expenses for watching the film "Broker" with Kim Kun-hee on June 12, 2022, in Seongdong-gu, Seoul.
The presidential office disclosed only part of the operational expenses, citing concerns that releasing the rest could harm national security, diplomacy, and personal privacy.
The Taxpayers Alliance contested this decision and filed another request for information in April 2023. The presidential office responded in May 2023 that the movie expenses were included in the operational expenses but did not disclose detailed information, maintaining that special activity and meal expenses were also confidential.
The first trial in September 2023 partially sided with the Taxpayers Alliance, ruling that while the operational expenses had already been published on the website, the details of special activity expenses, meal costs, and movie expenses should be disclosed.
In particular, the court did not accept the presidential office's claim that it did not possess relevant information regarding the meal expenses. The court found it difficult to believe that no information existed about the dinner, given that it was undeniable that a dinner had taken place and expenses were incurred.
The court also criticized the presidential office's approach to information disclosure, stating, "Avoiding clear and transparent responses to information requests can infringe upon the public's fundamental right to know."
Regarding the movie expenses, the court ruled that they did not pose a significant risk to national interests and should be disclosed.
Although the presidential office appealed, the second trial upheld the first trial's decision on April 1, 2024, requiring the disclosure of payment amounts, receipts, and budget items, excluding personal information and names of individuals involved in special activity expenses.
However, as the Supreme Court reviewed the case during the presidential office's appeal, Yoon's impeachment and the subsequent early presidential election led to a change in the management of related records. The law governing the management of presidential records stipulates that when a president is removed from office, the records must be transferred to the Presidential Archives before the next president's term begins.
In the remanded trial at the Seoul High Court, the focus will shift from whether there is a need to disclose meal and movie expenses to whether the presidential office currently holds the requested documents and whether there remains a legal interest in canceling the previous refusal to disclose.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.