1. The part of the lawsuit in this case seeking the revocation of the provisional disposition of denial of perusal and each document listed in the separate sheet No. 1.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 6, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with Suwon District Public Prosecutor’s Office No. 2009No. 1687 against the charge of perjury (hereinafter “the first accusation case”), and the summary of the accusation is that B appeared as a witness and testified in the court in the case for the alteration of private document No. 2008Kadan793, Suwon District Court 2008 Maga793, Sungnam-nam Branch of the Suwon District Public Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “the first accusation case”).

In the process of investigation into the above complaint case, there were interrogation of the suspect B, questioning of the plaintiff B, hearing of witness C, etc.

On September 16, 2009, the prosecutor in charge issued a disposition of non-prosecution on the charge with no suspicion against B, and the plaintiff appealed to file an application for adjudication but dismissed the plaintiff's application for adjudication on December 28, 2009, and the plaintiff's reappeal was also dismissed.

B. On October 19, 2015, the Plaintiff again filed a complaint with the Defendant regarding the entire investigation records of the first accusation case (hereinafter “instant investigation records”) against the Defendant for the purpose of submitting them as evidence for a inventory case (hereinafter “the inventory case”) by the Sung-nam District Prosecutors’ Office 2009 type 46483 (hereinafter “the instant investigation records”).

C. On October 20, 2015, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s copying of the investigation records of this case except documents stating the Plaintiff’s statement and documents submitted by the Plaintiff (this is the same as the attached list 1) on the ground that “the disclosure of records is likely to seriously harm the honor, privacy, safety of body, and peace of life of the persons involved in this case,” pursuant to Article 2(1)2 of the Rules on the Business of Preserving the Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “Rules”).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

In the instant lawsuit, the Defendant is included in the pertinent information under Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) on the grounds of non-permission of the instant disposition.