회의 공개와 회의록 공개의 관계 ― 회의 비공개 규정을 회의록 비공개 결정의 근거로 삼을 수 있는가?

In the case where a citizen requests the disclosure of information on the minutes of a public institution meeting held closed, it is a common response of that institution not to disclose the minutes because it was a closed meeting. And, in a lawsuit for cancellation of such a non-disclosure decision, the court has made a judgment affirming the legitimacy of the non-disclosure decision. Disclosure of minutes is a key element of open meeting, along with freedom of audience and reporting. The open meeting is not absolute, and closed meeting is, if necessary, permitted, but closed meeting does not necessarily mean non-disclosure of minutes. The principle of proportionality(prohibition of excessive measures) also applies to the closed meetings. If the reason for closed meeting is honest and free exchange of opinions among members of the meeting, and reasonable and valid agreement at the meeting, in many cases, such objectives can be achieved simply by restricting audience or reporting, rather than by non-disclosure of minutes. And, even if it is necessary to permit non-disclosure of minutes, the purpose can be sufficiently achieved, just by not revealing who the speaker is. Disclosure of minutes, the last resort to secure the democratic legitimacy and transparency of meetings, should be guaranteed as much as possible. The Information Disclosure Act allows external legal discipline of non-disclosure information, while requiring strict requirements to be met in relation to its norm form and degree of delegation. When using the regulation for closed meeting as the legal basis for non-disclosure of minutes, it should be carefully reviewed whether the regulation for closed meeting strictly met such norm form(Presidential Decree or Ordinance) and the degree of delegation(specific delegation to closed meeting).