● The Ministry of Foreign Affairs decided to keep the'Yunmihyang interview record' private… The

Ministry of Foreign Affairs decided not to disclose records of interviews with Congressman Yoon Mi-hyang, who was then standing at the time, during the negotiations with the comfort women in 2015. 'A lawyers' group for human rights and reunification on the Korean Peninsula', a so-called Hanbyon, yesterday (11th) notified of the decision to disclose information about the request for disclosure of the interview records. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has heard Article 9, paragraph 1, 2 of the Public Information Disclosure Act. The relevant provision is that information related to national security, national defense, reunification, and diplomatic relations, etc., if disclosed, may disclose information that is deemed to significantly harm the national interest. In other words, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs determined that the interview record with Assemblywoman Yoon Mi-hyang was'information that could significantly harm the country's important interests'. An official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, “I thought it was'no good for the national interest when it was released.' Said.


● Eyes

focused on the'content ' of the interview record If so, what was included in the interview record? First, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs complains about the format as well as the content of the interview record. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which has an interview record, is sparing it, so at this time, it is inevitable to infer it with fragmented information. As the logic of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is'information that could harm the country's great interests when it is released,' it is an observation that the contents of the negotiations between Korea and Japan and the evaluation and reaction of Congressman Yoon and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would be included. Interest is focused on how much the Foreign Ministry explained to Congressman Yoon Mi-hyang, and the talks of the officials are still mixed.

First, the victim of comfort women, Grandmother Lee Yong-su, told a press conference on the 7th of last month, "Only the representative (Rep. Yoon Mi-hyang) knew that 1 billion yen came from Japan during the 2015 Korea-Japan Agreement. Victims didn't know that." Rep. Cho Tae-yong, a future unification minister from the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, said at the time, a foreign ministry official said, "We have clearly reported that we have fully discussed the consensus of the comfort women."

On the other hand, Congresswoman Yoon Mi-hyang, an interviewer, said in a media interview on the 8th of last month that "the day before the agreement was notified, the announcement was different from the announcement on the day. Revealed. I heard some things in advance, but it was only on the day that the important agreement was reached.


This is in line with the report of the'Comfort Women Settlement TF' committee announced in December 2017. The TF report said, "In the course of the negotiations, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained the contents of the victims from time to time. However, we will notify you in detail of any actions that the Korean side needs to take, such as confirming the final and irreversible resolution and refusing to criticize and criticize the international community. No. We did not collect the opinions of the victims about the amount of money." At that time, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not inform the victims, ie Senator Yoon Mi-hyang, of the final and irreversible resolutions and criticism and criticism of the international community. Is the default position.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is also concerned that if the content of the interview on the premise of non-disclosure is disclosed, it may cause difficulties in consultation with civil society groups and academia in the future. One official said, "You have to talk based on a trust relationship with the private, but if the contents of the'private premise interview' are disclosed, you may be suspicious of that trust. "Communicative communication can be difficult," he said.

Another official said in December 2017 that TF Chairman Tae-Gyu Oh, the consensus committee of the comfort women, said,'I always write a secret security pledge whenever I read the data, and read it according to the regulations. While looking at the material, I couldn't actually copy, write, or shoot,' and also bypassed the point that the issues related to the negotiations of the comfort women were generally sensitive issues.


● “Interview record, not subject to disclosure” vs “possibly closed…must be compared with national interests”

Han Byeon said immediately after being informed of this policy by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "It is an illegal disposition," he said. "I will immediately file an administrative lawsuit." In the meantime, "It is difficult to say that the 2015 ROK-Japan Comfort Women Agreement is a non-public object under the Information Disclosure Act." I said. Han Byun also said, "People have the right to know whether Sen was aware of the consensus of the comfort women at the time and whether Sen's opinion was reflected in the agreement." He predicted that he would continue to take legal action to release interview records.


However, the objection is difficult. Constitutional scholar Lim Ji-bong, a professor at Sogang University's Graduate School of Law, said, "If you don't know the interview record, there is a limit to judgment." It can also include conversation information between representatives." Prof. Lim said, "If the interview record contains the responses and evaluations of the negotiations between Korea and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs between Korea and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and if it is disclosed, it could be information that could greatly influence the future of Korea-Japan relations." It seems that it was judged that it would be more beneficial to the national interest in the future negotiations between Korea and Japan." He emphasized, "Constitutionally, the right to know the people and freedom of the press to report is important, but national diplomatic security is also very important."

Prof. Lim, in relation to the court's criteria for judging, "considering specific situational factors in diplomatic relations, whether the'harmful national interests' when the interview record is released or the'profit to satisfy the right of the public to know' that is obtained when the disclosure is made is greater. I will weigh and judge." It does not mean that there is an absolute standard for judgment, but that it can vary depending on the specific content. Prof. Lim said, "It is not only the domestic courts but also the United States Supreme Court that tends to judge the profits on a case-by-case basis."

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs must prove that it is a record of interviews in the future courts that'when disclosed, can do serious harm to national interests'. At the same time, it is read as well as the feeling that'you can't step back when you do this'. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs lost the first trial and won the second trial in the'Disclosure of Consensus Documents of the Japanese-Japanese Comfort Women', which made a private decision in 2016, but is now waiting for the Supreme Court ruling. It is also likely that prolonged prosecution will be prolonged in the fierce courtroom.