On September 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the perusal and inspection of each information listed in the “subject information” column in [Attachment 1] table (hereinafter “subject information”) (hereinafter “subject information”) in accordance with the sequences of each “subject information” (hereinafter “subject information”), and collectively, “each information of this case” (hereinafter “subject information”).

On September 21, 2015, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s copying on the ground that, based on Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Military Prosecutor’s Affairs, the disclosure of records constitutes information subject to non-disclosure, on the grounds that “matters likely to seriously harm the reputation, privacy, safety of life and body, or peace in life of the persons related to the case.

(2) Each of the information of this case, which the Defendant refused to disclose to the public, does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure as prescribed by Article 9(1) proviso of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) and the Prosecutor’s Office Regulations.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition that was otherwise determined is unlawful.

In light of the fact that the information disclosure system is a system to disclose information held and managed by public institutions among the lawsuits in this case, it is sufficient to prove that the person seeking the information disclosure has a considerable probability to possess and manage the information. However, where the public institutions do not retain and manage the information, there is no legal interest to seek revocation of the disposition rejecting the information disclosure, barring special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Du9459 Decided January 13, 2006, etc.).