2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a national of the Republic of Korea who works in the administrative safety state B in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office.

B. On August 24, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) filed a request for disclosure of information [excluding personal information (resident number, address, mobile phone number)] on the date by which C from 2014 to 2015 to 2015, on August 24, 2016, with a view to giving public officials a warning to compliance with the Act, on the grounds that the Plaintiff reported that he/she engaged in illegal labor-management activities during working hours; (b) the details of the annual leave, official leave, C, C, and early leave. Since the pertinent information is used for public purposes, personal information (personal information number, address, cell phone number) is not intended to be disclosed; and (c) the Plaintiff filed a request for disclosure of information (hereinafter referred to as the “instant request for disclosure of information”).

C. Accordingly, on August 26, 2016, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure notice to the effect that the instant information is non-disclosure pursuant to Article 9(1)5 and 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) on the following grounds: (a) the instant information pertaining to the service of a public official and is irrelevant to the performance of his/her official duties; and (b) it cannot be disclosed as information that infringes on the privacy or freedom of individuals; and (c) thus, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure notice

D. D.

On October 28, 2015, prior to the filing of the instant request for the disclosure of information, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the disclosure of information on the current status of work progress from October 28, 2015 to October 2015, the information similar to the instant information, including the annual leave, official leave, special leave, sick leave, sicos, early leave, and early leave. The Plaintiff received a notification of non-disclosure decision from the Defendant, and thereafter filed an objection on November 16, 2015, but the Defendant dismissed the objection after the Information Disclosure Council was held, and the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with this.