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

A. On July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant for the disclosure of information on “Written Recommendation on the Results of Signature, signed on November 2, 2007, submitted to the President of the Department of the National Assembly on the date of Daegu City’s filing.”

B. On August 11, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the absence of information on the ground that the said information was not owned and managed.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion Daegu City was delivered to the president of the National Assembly on November 2, 2007 by 10,000 won, and the Plaintiff’s proposal was about a signature movement illegally implemented on confidential interest with the aim of undermining the Plaintiff’s soundness, and thus, the Defendant should disclose it to the public.

3. In light of the fact that the information disclosure system is a system that discloses information held and managed by public institutions, it is sufficient to prove that the person seeking information disclosure has a considerable probability of holding and managing the information that the person seeking information disclosure holds and manages by administrative agencies.

However, if a public institution fails to retain and manage such information, there is no legal interest to seek revocation of the disposition rejecting information disclosure, unless there is a special reason to the contrary.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the revocation of the disposition of this case, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the presumption of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

4. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.