A. From January 20, 2017, the Plaintiff was submitted to the disciplinary procedure while serving as the professor of the Korea Army Academy at Army from January 20, 2017.

B. On February 22, 2019, the Plaintiff was subject to a three-month disciplinary measure (hereinafter “instant disciplinary measure”) by the Head of the Korea Army Academy at Armed Forces on the ground that he/she violated his/her duty to maintain dignity.

C. On July 19, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the instant disciplinary action and filed a complaint with the Appeal Committee against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff applied for perusal or reproduction of the Plaintiff’s “the names, resident registration numbers, dates of birth, occupations, addresses, basic domicile numbers, telephone numbers, religion, academic background, etc. of each statement and disciplinary deliberation committee (excluding personal information, such as the names, resident registration numbers, dates of birth, occupations, addresses, basic domicile numbers, telephone numbers, religion, academic records, etc.)” against the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disciplinary action records”) only part of the disciplinary action records against the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff applied for perusal or duplication.

The defendant, on August 30, 2019, disclosed only the statement that the plaintiff made on February 11, 2019 among the disciplinary records of this case, and did not respond to the remaining parts.

(B) In the instant disciplinary action records, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Defendant made a disposition of implied non-disclosure (recognition) with respect to the remainder of the Plaintiff’s written statement in the instant disciplinary action records except for the Plaintiff’s written statement from among the instant disciplinary action records (hereinafter “instant disposition”). 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s application for perusal or duplication of the instant disciplinary records, the Defendant disclosed only the Plaintiff’s statement of statement, and made an implied non-disclosure disposition on the remainder.