1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

(b) serve as a taxi engineer on November 11, 2010 and is working by civic groups, such as the search for the rights of taxi workers after dismissal;

B. On March 13, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an information disclosure with the Defendant on the amount subsidized from September 2012 to February 2014, 2014 in relation to the payment of insurance premium of KRW 20,000 per person per taxi employee of the taxi company in Daejeon Metropolitan City, and on the “detailed statement of payment of monthly insurance policyholder, number of workers, and amount of refund at the time of injury (Death)” for each company.

C. On March 18, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision to disclose the information portion as follows.

Details of Disclosure

1. Amount of subsidies for insurance premiums for corporate taxi drivers (from September 2012 to February 2014);

2. A list of monthly policyholders by company;

3. Personal data provided by the traffic safety Authority;

4. The details of and reasons for non-disclosure of the details of the payment of injury (including partial disclosure) and the refund at maturity - the list of business entities and eligible persons (non-disclosure) in the payment of accident compensation - the date of accident, the number of diagnosis orders and the amount of payment (disclosure) - the name of business entities and eligible persons subject to the maturity refund * the number of applicable days and the actual payment (disclosure).

D. On March 25, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the ground that the Defendant’s rejection disposition against disclosure of information without presenting the legal basis and grounds for partial disclosure was illegal. On August 12, 2014, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission revoked the Defendant’s rejection disposition against disclosure of information on the ground that the Defendant’s refusal disposition without disclosing the grounds for non-disclosure was illegal.

E. On August 27, 2014, the Defendant again made a non-disclosure decision by presenting the following reasons to the Plaintiff in accordance with the ruling by the Central Administrative Appeals Commission:

(hereinafter referred to as "information of this case" and the decision of non-disclosure is referred to as "disposition of this case"). A corporation or taxi driver who is a non-disclosure ground for the decision of the contents of the request for information disclosure.