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

A. On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Defendant to the effect that “The Plaintiff applied reduction or exemption for self-employed farmland for at least eight (8) years upon filing a report on capital gains tax on the land located in Hanam-gun, Hanam-gun, where the Plaintiff had owned.” On October 8, 2014, an investigator C and a telephone conversation did not hear sufficient explanation on the requirements for self-employed reduction or exemption, and there was a dispute with C and the head of the investigation team (InvestigatorsD) who was at the same time, and D responded to the Plaintiff’s question. After that, the Plaintiff asked the public official in charge of the Plaintiff about materials proving the re-related relationship, but failed to hear sufficient explanation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not accept the Plaintiff’s opinion on self-employed for at least eight (8) years, and thus demanding disciplinary action against D.” Accordingly, the Defendant verbally filed a civil petition to the effect that “the Plaintiff dealt with the Plaintiff’s civil petition in accordance with the internal regulations.”

B. Accordingly, on October 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant for disclosure of the details of receipt of verbal civil petition filed by the Plaintiff after visiting the Defendant and the details of the measures taken against the relevant public official’s disciplinary request (hereinafter “information of this case”). On October 22, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition rejecting information disclosure (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the details of receipt of the Gu civil petition were perused by the Plaintiff at the time of receipt by the Plaintiff ( October 16, 2014),” and “the details of receipt of the Gu civil petition was perused by the Plaintiff at the time of receipt by the Plaintiff.”

C. The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.