A. On November 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the disclosure of information with the Defendant on the details of compensation for the attached land B, C, D, E, F, G, and H (hereinafter “I-Dong land”).

B. On November 15, 2017, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure disposition on the ground that “B, D, and G land does not have any compensation details,” and that the details of compensation for C, E, F, and H land fall under Article 9(3) and (6) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) (see Article 9(1)3 and 6).

(A) According to the court’s non-disclosure review, it can be confirmed that B, D, and G land did not have the details of compensation. As such, “The details of compensation for C, E, F, and H land for which the details of compensation exist” referred to as “information of this case,” and “the disposition of this case not to disclose the information of this case” / [based on recognition] without dispute, entry in Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)3 and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act, and thus, the instant disposition that disclosed the instant information is unlawful.

B. The Defendant’s assertion constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 35(4)3(d) of the Personal Information Protection Act and Article 9(1)3 and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act, and thus, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. The entry in the relevant statutes (attached Form 2) is as follows.

4. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. According to the result of the court’s non-disclosure inspection of the instant information as to whether the instant information constitutes Article 9(1)3 of the Information Disclosure Act, it cannot be deemed that the instant information contains “information that is likely to seriously obstruct the protection of people’s lives, bodies, and property if disclosed.” Thus, the instant information cannot be deemed to include “information that is likely to seriously impede the protection of people