A. On April 1, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the disclosure of information on the monthly fee of mobile phone used by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant information”) from December 1, 2012 to March 2018.

(hereinafter “instant request for information disclosure”). (b)

On April 27, 2018, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision on the ground that “The instant case does not conform to the purpose of the Information Disclosure Act, and thus, was non-disclosure.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition not only did it clearly state whether it falls under any of the grounds under the proviso of Article 9(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”), but also violated the purport of the Information Disclosure Act with the aim of guaranteeing citizens’ right to know and ensuring citizens’ participation in state affairs and transparency in state administration.

B. Article 13(4) of the Information Disclosure Act provides that when a public institution decides to disclose information, it shall notify the applicant of the fact by specifying the reasons for non-disclosure in detail.

In addition, Articles 1, 3, and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act provide that all citizens shall disclose information held and managed by public institutions in principle in order to guarantee the people's right to know and to ensure the people's participation in state affairs and transparency in state administration.

Therefore, as a public institution requested to disclose information held and managed by the people, it shall disclose it unless it falls under the grounds for non-disclosure as provided in each subparagraph of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, and even if it refuses to do so, it shall confirm and review the contents of the information in detail.