A. Of the instant lawsuits, the part that seeks the revocation of an information disclosure refusal disposition regarding the original business registration, construction construction permit, copy of construction permit, power of delegation, and document information by which the mandator’s intent of delegation can be verified, among the documents attached to a corrective report of business registration filed on July 13, 2012.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the modification of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows 2. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Revised parts

○ 2 10 o.b. “Nonpublic...................................

○ 7 below the 7th "Nonpublic decision" (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") shall be added

○ Removal of the two sections below the 2 pages

○ 3. The following shall be added below 3 pages:

Of documents attached to a report of correction of business registration filed on July 13, 2012, whether the part concerning the request for revocation of the non-disclosure decision on documents that can verify the original business registration, a construction permit, a copy of a construction permit, a power delegated by the mandator is legitimate.

In light of the fact that the part seeking cancellation of the disposition of this case relating to this part of the lawsuit of this case is a system that discloses information held and managed by public institutions in its state, etc., it is sufficient for a person seeking information disclosure to prove that there is a considerable probability that the person seeking information will hold and manage the information to be disclosed. However, if a public institution does not retain and manage such information, there is no legal interest to seek cancellation of the disposition rejecting information disclosure, barring any special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Du7087, Apr. 25, 2003; 2002Du12854, Jan. 28, 2005).

이 법원의 비공개 열람심사 결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 피고가 문○○으로부터 위 사업자등록 정정신고서와 함께 이 사건 동업계약서, 문○○과 황○○의 인감증명서, 서울고등법원 2010카기XXXX 조정조서경정 사건의 결정문, 서울고등법원 2006라XXX 건물출입방해금지등가처분 사건의 조정조서 및 가처분신청서, 황○○ 및 문○○의 신분증 사본, 사업자등록증 사본, 서울 ○○구 ○○동 ○○번지 대 157㎡ 토지의 등기사항전부증명서를 제출받아 보유하고 있는 사실은 인정되나, 달리 피고가 이 사건 동업계약서를 제외한 나머지 2차 청구정보인 사업자등록 원본, 건축공사허가증 사본, 위임장, 위임인의 위임의사를 확인할 수 있는 서류를 보유ㆍ관리하고 있을 상당한 개연성이 있다는 점을 인정할 아무런 증거가 없다.

Therefore, the part seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case against the above information among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no legal interest.

3. To revise the term "legal nature of the disposition" of 3. 4 pages to "the disclosure of a corrective statement of business registration and whether the non-disclosure part of the instant agreement is legitimate"

00000000000000000

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Although the Plaintiff requested to disclose a document of approval on the corrective statement of business registration, the Defendant’s disclosure of only the name and position of a public official who performed his/her duties to the Plaintiff by means of being written in the notice of notification on the objection shall not be made public in a processed form, such as extracting or weak part of the information.

2) Since there is no content that the Defendant excluded the Plaintiff from joint business operators, the Defendant’s disposition accepting the report of business registration should be revoked as unlawful.

3) On November 10, 2003, while the Plaintiff entered into a joint business agreement for new construction and sales business of yellow iron and multi-household housing and entered into a joint business agreement and registered as a joint business proprietor on November 10, 2003, the Plaintiff was at a disadvantage excluded from joint business operators due to the Defendant’s receipt of a report of correction of joint business registration with Do○○ without termination of the joint business agreement and the Defendant’s receipt of the report of correction of joint business operators. Therefore, the Defendant should disclose the instant joint business agreement made by falsity between Y○ and

4) The instant trade agreement is an essential document for a business registration statement, and the collection and use of personal information is agreed pursuant to Article 24 of the Personal Information Protection Act. The instant trade agreement is an information necessary for the Plaintiff, who is the taxpayer, to exercise his/her rights, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to promptly provide the Plaintiff with such information pursuant to Article 81-14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

5) Furthermore, if the disclosure of taxation information is anticipated to result in the sound and desirable establishment of tax policies by taking measures to ensure that the identity of the taxpayer is not recognizable as much as the infringement of the taxpayer’s personal information does not occur, even if taxation information is provided, it shall be deemed possible to disclose taxation information to the extent that it does not go against the purpose and intent of confidentiality under the Framework Act

○ 6 Up to 8 to 9 Administrations are modified as follows:

“No.” It cannot be deemed that the instant disposition violates the constitutional spirit that guarantees the right to know, freedom of expression, and the right to pursue happiness (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du11544, Mar. 12, 2004).

○ 6. The following shall be added to the last place below:

[D] A claim for disclosure of information on the instant trade agreement does not seem to be consistent with the public interest, such as recommending a taxpayer to faithfully cooperate with tax, or expected to contribute to the establishment of a sound and desirable tax policy. On the other hand, it is difficult to view that the instant trade agreement is a trade agreement concluded between ○○ and Y○○, and thus, partial disclosure is possible because the Plaintiff already knows that it was a trade agreement entered into between ○○ and Y○○. Even if possible, it is difficult to see that the instant trade agreement is a trade agreement of this case by taking measures that could not identify or presume the taxpayer’s personal information, which is strictly limited to the use of the tax information acquired from the taxpayer for purposes other than the purpose of taxation, thereby ensuring that the taxpayer is aware of and faithfully performing the duty of tax payment, while preventing the taxpayer from refusing tax administration due to the disclosure without any restriction on taxation information, considering the legislative intent of Article 18-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it is difficult to view

○ 7 Mo 1 p.m. c. c. c. c. c. c. c.)

○ 7 2 to 7 9 cm

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of an information disclosure refusal disposition concerning the original copy of business registration, copy of construction permit, power of delegation, and document information that can verify the delegated intent of the delegating person among the documents attached to the registration of business operator as of July 13, 2012, among the documents pertaining to the instant lawsuit, shall be dismissed, and the remainder shall be dismissed as of the grounds for rejection. Since the judgment of the first instance is partially unfair as the conclusion is partially different, the judgment of the first instance is modified as referred to in Article 1-A and