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

The Plaintiff is a member of the B Apartment Housing Reconstruction Project Association (hereinafter referred to as the “instant association”).

On May 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the first disclosure of information with respect to the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the instant association for the disclosure of all of the list of union members and written resolution and the list of union members except resident registration numbers. However, on May 30, 2014, the instant association did not disclose the information. On June 9, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the disclosure of information on the list of union members, including the name, current address, number of union members, telephone number, contact number, and union members number. On June 9, 2014, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to disclose information to the head of the instant association pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) and Article 81(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

The plaintiff's second information disclosure claim against the defendant against the plaintiff was filed with the union of this case.

On June 24, 2014, the instant union filed a new claim for disclosure of information on the list of union members, but the instant union did not disclose the information, and on June 24, 2014, the Defendant filed a claim against the Defendant for disclosure of information on the list of union members. On July 2, 2014, the Defendant rendered a rejection disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the instant union shall file a claim for disclosure of information with the instant union, and the Defendant

On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Plaintiff’s rejection disposition against the second rejection disposition against the Plaintiff’s filing of the objection and the second rejection disposition against the information disclosure, and the Defendant, on July 24, 2014, recognized that the list of partners may infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals if disclosed as personal information. Thus, it is reasonable to make a non-disclosure decision under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act, and it is reasonable to do so against the instant association under Article 81 of the