The court ruled, "Disclose audit information on city and provincial election commissions." (Screenshot from Seoul Administrative Court ruling)  

A court ruling has determined that it is illegal for the National Election Commission to withhold audit information on city and provincial election commissions without justifiable reasons. 

According to the ruling obtained by on the 20th, the 4th Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Kim Young-min, Judges Han Dae-gwang and Jeon Min-jeong) partially ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the 17th in a lawsuit filed by plaintiff A against defendant Noh Tae-ak, Chairperson of the National Election Commission, to revoke the disposition of refusal to disclose information, stating that "it is illegal not to disclose audit information on city and provincial election commissions without justifiable reasons." 

In its ruling, the court stated, "The disposition to refuse disclosure of each piece of information listed in the 'Information Disclosure Request Information' in Attachment 1 is dismissed, and for the remaining parts, all information excluding non-disclosable information such as personal details shall be disclosed." 

Upon news reports regarding the election expenses of the Chungbuk Election Commission, plaintiff A requested disclosure of audit results for election commissions in Chungbuk and seven other cities and provinces. However, during the trial, the presiding judges confirmed the facts and found that special audits had not been conducted for the other seven city and provincial election commissions. 

Accordingly, the court ruled that for the information in Attachment 1, "there is no legal interest to revoke the refusal of disclosure because no special audit was conducted." However, for the remaining information, it ruled for the first time that all information that the election commission had effectively refused to disclose should be disclosed, excluding personal information such as personal details that other agencies generally exclude from disclosure.

Specifically, the court stated, "The content examining the objective facts regarding whether the actions and illegality of the audited parties are recognized, and the progress of related work, are not content that could cause unnecessary misunderstanding or confusion to the public, and their disclosure is not expected to hinder the fair performance of audit work." 

It further added, "By securing the appropriateness and transparency of the defendant's work through the disclosure of documents (excluding non-disclosable information such as the personal information and statements of related parties and audit methods), unnecessary suspicions can be prevented. In light of the legislative purpose and intent of the Information Disclosure Act, which guarantees the public's right to know and secures public participation in national affairs and transparency in national administration, 'reasons for non-disclosure' need to be strictly interpreted, and this principle must be applied equally, even considering the specificity of the defendant as a constitutional institution." 

Lawyer Park Ju-hyun (Photo: The Korea-Japan Times)

On March 24th, plaintiff A filed a lawsuit after the National Election Commission refused his request for information disclosure regarding the results of its own audits of election commissions in Chungbuk and seven other cities and provinces in 2024. 

According to the attachment to the court ruling, the audit data requested by the plaintiff includes: △ details of 660 cases of election expense execution by the Chungbuk Election Commission, amounting to approximately 23 billion won, △ detailed content of over 1300 missing evidentiary documents related to these cases, △ investigation results for approximately 480 instances of alteration and false creation of election expense payment resolutions, △ detailed specifics of cases where monthly closing and accounting document organization were not performed, and △ detailed matters regarding disciplinary actions requested for responsible parties based on audit results. 

Lawyer Park Ju-hyun (Law Firm Hwanggeumryul), who represented plaintiff A, stated, "Although it is a victory for four-fifths of the claim, it is significant that this is the first time we have won a lawsuit against an election commission." 

The defendant Election Commission, which lost this lawsuit, will be responsible for 80% of the litigation costs.