A. On August 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of the following: (a) the public notice of the meeting held by the subcommittee for deliberation on the registration of geographical indications (hereinafter “instant subcommittee”) on August 6, 2014; (b) the public notice of the results of the meeting; (c) the public notice of the participants’ names; and (d) the public notice of meeting expenses; and (e) the minutes and recording records; and (c) on August 26, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision not to disclose to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 9(1)5 through 7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act; and Article 18(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Records Management Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

Non-disclosure Grounds - The list of participants and matters concerning the B results of the disclosure consent, and the list of participants has already been disclosed, and the plaintiff has been related to all third parties and has heard the third party's opinions on the information requested to be disclosed, and the third party has requested the defendant to disclose the information related to himself.

On October 26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, and subsequently amended the purport of the claim to the effect that, on November 24, 2016, among each information initially claimed to be disclosed, the Plaintiff only contests the non-disclosure decision on each information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each information of this case”) as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant information”).

The defendant's non-disclosure decision of August 26, 2016 is "the disposition of this case" that only turn on the non-disclosure decision of each of the information of this case.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff 1’s assertion falls under the information subject to disclosure according to the purport of the administrative appeal ruling or administrative litigation ruling of other cases, and thus, it cannot be denied by the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant requested a third party to refuse disclosure. Article 9(1)5 through 7 of the Information Disclosure Act and public records management presented by the Defendant as the basis of disposition.