정보공개거부처분취소
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s information indicated in attached Form 1 List 2, which was against the Plaintiff on September 20, 2016.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 26, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Plaintiff for fraud, namely, that (a) he/she would pay interest even if he/she borrowed money from the Plaintiff, even if he/she did not have an intent or ability to repay the money, and (b) he/she acquired a total of KRW 218 million from the Plaintiff on five occasions from May 18, 201 to July 13, 2011, by deceiving the Plaintiff.
B. In the foregoing case, the prosecutor, on March 30, 2012, rendered a non-prosecution disposition against B on the charge of having no suspicion (defluence of evidence). The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the said disposition with the Chuncheon District Prosecutors’ Office No. 2012 High Prosecutors’ Office No. 2014 and 206, but the said appeal was dismissed on August 21, 2012.
Therefore, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication with Seoul High Court 2012 early 4144, but the above application for adjudication was dismissed on October 18, 2012.
C. On September 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a copying on the entire records under [Attachment 1] No. 476 (hereinafter “the instant records”). However, the Defendant permitted copying only for the documents listed in [Attachment 1 List No. 2], and the remainder of the documents are subject to public disclosure of the records under Article 22 subparag. 2 of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecutor’s Preservation, on the ground that “the disclosure of the records would seriously undermine the honor, privacy, safety of life and body, or peace of life of a person involved in the instant case,” and Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecutor’s Preservation (hereinafter “instant non-permission disposition”).
On December 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant non-permission disposition.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2
2. Whether the non-permission disposition in this case is legitimate
A. The plaintiff's assertion can not allow the plaintiff's request for inspection and copying of the information listed in the attached Table 1, in accordance with Article 22 of the Rules on the Prosecution's Preservation Affairs.