Supreme Court Overturns Ruling on Yoon’s Meal Expenses Disclosure... Orders New Review of Legal Standing

"Records Transferred to Presidential Archives After Impeachment and Vacancy"

Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News

A Supreme Court ruling has sent back to a lower court the case ordering the disclosure of meal expenses for former President Yoon Suk-yeol and his spouse, as well as the details of special activity funds at the presidential office.

According to legal sources on August 7, the Supreme Court’s First Petty Bench (Presiding Justice Noh Kyung-pil) quashed a previous ruling partially in favor of the plaintiff and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court. The suit was filed by the Korea Taxpayers' Association, which sought to nullify the Blue House's refusal to disclose information.

In 2022, the Korea Taxpayers' Association requested disclosure of information about special activity funds and business promotion expenses related to dinner costs and movie tickets paid for by former President Yoon and his spouse at a Korean restaurant in Gangnam-gu, Seoul. However, the Blue House refused, citing the risk of significant harm to national interests such as security and foreign relations, prompting the association to initiate a lawsuit.

Both the district and appellate courts ruled partially in favor of the plaintiff, stating that, apart from items already made public such as certain business promotion expenses, the remaining special activity fund expenditures and meal and movie costs did not qualify for exemption under the Information Disclosure Act.

The Supreme Court, however, reached a different conclusion. The Court raised questions regarding the continued existence of "standing" (i.e., a legally protected interest in the lawsuit). The bench explained, "The office of the 20th president was vacated due to impeachment in April 2025, and presidential records had already been fully transferred to the Presidential Archives at the time of the inauguration of the 21st president. As such, there is ample reason to believe that the requested information has also been transferred to the Archives and is no longer held or managed by the defendant (the Chief of Presidential Staff)."

The Court added, "The transfer took place after the conclusion of oral arguments in the lower court in March 2024. Therefore, it is necessary to newly examine whether the defendant’s loss of possession of the information means that the legal interest in the lawsuit remains."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.