A. On January 2010, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against B with the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office 2016No. 11535 (hereinafter “the instant criminal case”) while “B, in collusion with D, who is an accountant of C Accounting Corporation, borrowed KRW 100 million to D to guarantee the principal of the Plaintiff, and that it received KRW 124,300,000 from the Plaintiff and received KRW 120,000 from the Plaintiff.” The prosecutor of the above District Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter “instant criminal case”). On April 25, 2017, the Prosecutor issued a non-prosecution disposition without suspicion against B.

B. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the non-prosecution disposition (Seoul High Prosecutor’s Office No. 2017 High Prosecutor’s Office No. 5543), but was dismissed. On September 13, 2017, the Plaintiff’s application for adjudication (Seoul High Court 2017 Elementary Prosecutor’s Office No. 2996) was also dismissed.

C. On May 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed with the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office an application for the copying of each of the documents listed in the separate sheet No. 2 in the records of the instant criminal case, but the prosecutor of the said Public Prosecutor’s Office notified the Plaintiff of the refusal of copying of each of the documents on May 15, 2018 on the ground that Article 22(1)2 and 4 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Office

(hereinafter “Disposition rejecting Copy of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] / [In the absence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The refusal disposition of the copy of this case is based on the Rules on the Prosecution's Affairs without any legal effect, as well as the information listed in the attached Table 1 list among the information listed in the attached Table 2 list (hereinafter "information of this case").

The Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) provides for the following:

) Since it is apparent that the instant disposition does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure due to the Defendant’s refusal to copy the instant information (hereinafter “instant disposition”), the part of the Defendant’s refusal to copy the instant information.

(2) The Defendant asserts that this case’s information was unlawful. The Defendant asserted that this case’s information was unlawful, and Article 9(1)4 and 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act.