2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On July 24, 2017, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose the list of the members of the Central Pharmaceutical Affairs Council, occupation, organization to which they belong, and major information.

B. On August 20, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the list and occupation of the members of the Central Pharmaceutical Affairs Council should be disclosed, and that the organization to which the Plaintiff belongs and the major should be kept confidential pursuant to Article 9(1)5 and 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. 1) Whether the Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in the course of the procedure. Inasmuch as the Defendant presented only Article 9(1)5 and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act on the grounds of non-disclosure and did not explain the specific grounds, the instant disposition is insufficient to present the grounds, and the instant disposition is unlawful due to procedural defect. 2) The details of the Plaintiff’s claim for disclosure of information to the Defendant are the information pertaining to the organization and major belonging to the Central Pharmaceutical Affairs Council members, and the information pertaining to major. Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that “where disclosed, there is considerable reason to believe that the disclosure may seriously interfere with the fair performance of duties or the research and development of the information,” and Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act provides “information pertaining to an individual, which is deemed likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom

In full view of the above details of the Plaintiff’s request for disclosure of information and the contents of Article 9(1)5 and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act, the Plaintiff is deemed to have not interfered with the process of administrative remedy because it could be known that the Defendant was aware of the disposition of this case on the ground of any ground.