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

A. On August 6, 2015, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Plaintiff’s children”), who are the Plaintiff’s children, filed a civil petition with the Plaintiff to the effect that the Plaintiff would benefit from the supply and demand of their basic living, paid to the Plaintiff directly, on the grounds that the Plaintiff is separately residing in the same household with the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant documents”).

B. On August 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for information disclosure with the Defendant stating that “the Defendant is a person with parental authority of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, who is a minor, and Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, a request for a copy of the petition documents filed by the recipient of basic living cost split-off.”

C. On August 24, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision of non-disclosure based on Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act and Article 18(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the commercial document is related to an individual’s personal affairs and grievances and disclosed to the public, which would infringe on the individual’s privacy or freedom of individuals subject to disclosure if disclosed, and the principal also refuses to disclose the information (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form "Related Acts and subordinate statutes" shall be as stated.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

In light of the following facts and circumstances, the aforementioned facts and evidence, and the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the records of this Court’s perusal and examination of the documents of this case by non-disclosure, and the following facts and circumstances, the information of this case constitutes information pertaining to the Plaintiff’s children, which, if disclosed, could infringe on the privacy or freedom of private life.

① The instant documents are not written by the Defendant, who is an administrative agency, but directly prepared by the Plaintiff’s children, and include personal information, such as mobile phone numbers, etc.

② The Plaintiff’s children appears to have a free decision-making capacity in light of the following: (a) as the Plaintiff’s children in 197 and 1998, they have prepared the instant documents on their own hand and by themselves; and (b) are consenting to disclosure of the instant documents.

③ Determination as to whether to pay basic living costs by installments is a matter to be made by the Defendant, regardless of whether the Plaintiff’s children’s claim, as prescribed by the National Basic Living Security Act. The Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff did not use the Plaintiff’s basic living costs for his/her children even after receiving the Plaintiff’s basic living costs. Accordingly, the payment by installments was de facto reduced in the total amount of basic living costs paid by the Plaintiff, but the instant documents cannot be deemed as documents that directly affect the Plaintiff’s legal status.

④ around 2007, both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s children began to enter Seongbuk-gu Seoul ( Address omitted), “○○○○○○○○○” (Operation, Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 4). The Plaintiff did not board and live in the said building due to a Chinese business trip, etc., and the Plaintiff was able to live in a different place from that of the said building on December 2014. The Plaintiff’s children were living together with Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, and Nonparty 10 years, while the Plaintiff’s actually resided together with Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4, the period during which they actually resided with the Plaintiff appears to have not to have been much long. Considering the aforementioned circumstances and the Plaintiff’s child’s child’s child’s process of raising and their residential situation, the Plaintiff’s document of this case cannot be deemed to have been disclosed to the public

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Kim Jong-hwan (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-young