A. The Plaintiff filed a criminal charge of violating the Personal Information Protection Act with the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office No. 2018-type 7104 (No. 2018-type 7104) (hereinafter “the instant accusation case”); and on February 13, 2018, the Plaintiff issued a dismissal disposition with respect to B and limited liability law firms (LLC).

B. On January 24, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a copy of the records and written statements submitted by the Defendant, among the records of the instant accusation case, but the Defendant issued a notice of non-permission (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the same day on the grounds that the said information constitutes Article 22(1)2 and 4 of the Rules on the Military Prosecution Preservation Affairs.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Defendant asserts that the instant disposition is lawful by adding the grounds for disposition under Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) during the proceeding of the instant lawsuit to the grounds for disposition.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the information he/she applied for recording does not constitute grounds for restrictions on copying records under Article 22 (1) 2 and 4 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutors' Office, but does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 6 of the Information Disclosure Act.

(b)as shown in Appendix 3 of the relevant statutes.

C. As seen earlier, whether the 1st prosecutorial office rules can be the legal basis for the disposition, or whether the Defendant rendered the instant disposition based on Article 22(1)2 and 4 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Offices.

However, Article 22 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutors' Offices is merely an administrative rule for the internal administrative affairs of administrative agencies without any legal ground for delegation, and therefore, Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act on the limitation of inspection and copying of the above rules.