1. On April 3, 2015, the Defendant’s refusal to disclose information pertaining to each information listed in the separate sheet No. 2, which was against the Plaintiffs.

Details of the disposition

On October 11, 2014, the Defendant conducted the second qualifying examination for licensed administrative agents on October 201, 2014 at the entrustment of the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs pursuant to Article 8(1) and (3) of the Administrative Justice Act (hereinafter “instant examination”).

The method of the examination of this case is composed of 4 subjects of the Civil Code, the theory of administrative procedure, the theory of office management, and the practical law of administrative affairs (one hundred points each), and four questions per subject shall be drawn up.

The criteria for passing the examination of this case are "a person whose score of each subject is not less than 40 points, and whose average score of all subjects is not less than 60 points," and where the number of successful examinees is less than 330 persons (287 general administrative officers, foreign language translation administrative officers, and three technical administrative officers: 40 persons) who have obtained not less than 40 points in all subjects within the scope of the minimum number of successful examinees, successful examinees shall be additionally determined in the order of higher average points for all subjects from among those who have obtained not less than 40 points in all subjects, and where the number of successful examinees exceeds the minimum number of successful

The plaintiffs applied for the instant examination. On December 17, 2014, the defendant rejected the Plaintiffs’ dispositions on the grounds that the points of the Plaintiffs’ Administrative Agent Practice Act subject fall short of 40 points.

The Plaintiffs filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “first claim information”) on March 11, 2015, but the Defendant rendered a decision not to disclose the information on March 20, 2015 on the ground that: (a) in the case of information disclosed, the disclosure may interfere with the fair performance of the test; (b) in accordance with Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) on the ground that the disclosure could interfere with the fair performance of the test; and (c) in the case of information disclosed under Articles 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9, the Defendant’s non-disclosure decision was made on the ground that there was no non-existence information managed by the Defendant’s computer system.

The Plaintiffs, on March 27, 2015, specified as the “information of this case” to the Defendant listed in the [Attachment 2 List, and specified as the sequences.

-.