2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. Around January 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant for disclosure of “a notice of decision on all requests for disclosure of information received at the Cheongyang District Prosecutors’ Office from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 (excluding attached Form 7 and personal information)” (hereinafter “instant information”).

B. On January 28, 2013, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff refusing to disclose the instant information pursuant to Article 9(1)6 of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “former Information Disclosure Act”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the disclosure of all of the instant information constitutes the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 of the former Information Disclosure Act, even though the Plaintiff’s disclosure of the remainder, other than the name and resident registration number, which is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of privacy, is unlawful.

Second, the instant information contains personal information or personally identifiable information under the Personal Information Protection Act, such as the name, resident registration number, and telephone number of a third party, and thus constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the former Information Disclosure Act.

Third, the plaintiff does not present the reason and supporting evidence while requesting the disclosure of the information of this case at all, and the information of this case does not need to be disclosed when compared with the interests of the third party such as privacy.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. In an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition judgment against the first defendant's first assertion, the disposition agency is deemed to have the same factual basis as the grounds for the original disposition.