beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Although the Plaintiff sought a judgment identical to the purport of the claim, the court of the first instance dismissed the part of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information as to the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (integrated with images, such as all CCTV images, corridors, entrances, work improvement1, etc.) from May 15, 2013 to May 16, 2013, and the part rejecting the disclosure of information as to the part rejecting the disclosure of information as to the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (integrated with images, such as all CCTVs, corridors, entrances, work improvement1, etc., of officers of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency from May 15, 2013 to May 16, 2013), and the part rejecting the disclosure of information as to the part rejecting the disclosure of information as to the information rejected, as to the information listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list No. 3 (with respect to the part rejecting the disclosure of information as to the information in the separate sheet No. 3 (as to May 170 through 1843, 2013).
Since only the plaintiff appealed, the part of the refusal disposition of information disclosure as to the information listed in the attached list No. 1 was separately determined, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part against the plaintiff among the judgment of the court
2. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the following: (a) and part of the judgment of the court of the first instance, the reasoning of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance; and (b) thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420
3. The second o Section 15 (d) of the 15 line "(d)" shall be written in the same manner as "A.".
A person shall be appointed.
D. The plaintiff is the above A.
(b) and (c);
On November 28, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced a fine of KRW 5 million to a fine of KRW 2,00,000,000 to a charge of a building intrusion, obstruction of performance of official duties, damage to public goods, or non-compliance with the removal, and the appeal is pending at the Seoul Central District Court 2014No5196.
The term "paragraph (f)" of the third line 9 of the o shall be dried as follows.