1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who works as a Grade 6 correctional officer in a net prison.

B. Around August 30, 2018, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose each information listed in the separate sheet to the public.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant, around September 11, 2018, disclosed the information listed in the separate sheet No. 4, and notified that each information listed in the separate sheet No. 2, 3, and 5 is nonexistent, and the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 constitutes Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) on the ground that the information listed in the separate sheet No. 6 falls under Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (if disclosed, there is considerable reason to believe that the disclosure of information about personnel management would seriously interfere with the fair performance of duties). As to the information listed in the separate sheet No. 6, Article 9(1)5 and 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act (including the name included in the relevant information, etc., which is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals if disclosed).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s information listed in the attached list No. 1 of the Plaintiff’s assertion falls under the information set forth in the second half of 2017 and the first half of 2018, and the information set forth in the attached list No. 6, which was paid within the said period, as the list of the payment of performance-based bonus S. that was paid within the said period, and all “information which has considerable grounds to believe that the disclosure would seriously

(1) The Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful and thus should be revoked, since it does not constitute “information pertaining to an individual, which is deemed likely to infringe on the secrecy or freedom of privacy if disclosed.”

(b) Information Disclosure Act;