Accordingly, on October 16, 2018, the Defendant rejected all of the Plaintiff’s claims for the above perusal and copying on the ground that the above information claimed by the Plaintiff falls under Article 22(1)2 and 4 of the Rules on the Affairs for Preservation of Prosecution (hereinafter “instant Rules”).

[Plaintiff’s motion to revoke the rejection disposition on the interrogation protocol of B (excluding the contents indicated in the attached non-disclosure information list) among the information for which the Defendant rejected the inspection and copying, and thus, the Plaintiff’s motion to refuse the inspection and copying of the information of this case (excluding the contents indicated in the attached non-disclosure information list) is called “information of this case,” and “the rejection disposition of this case” is called “the grounds for recognition”). The facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the refusal disposition of this case

A. The instant rule, which is a mere administrative rule on the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, does not constitute grounds for refusing to disclose the instant information, and the Plaintiff requires the instant information to be relieved of damage inflicted by the acts related to the case No. 2017 type No. 24621 of the former District Prosecutors’ Office. As such, the instant information is excluded from the information subject to non-disclosure pursuant to the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

Therefore, the defendant's rejection disposition of this case is illegal.

B. The Defendant rendered the instant refusal disposition based on Article 22(1)2 and 4 of the Rules, but the instant refusal disposition under Article 9(1)4 and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act during the proceeding of the instant lawsuit.