1. The case records by the Defendant at Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office 2017 type No. 7234, and No. 2017 type No. 7935, which were committed against the Plaintiff on February 19, 2018.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In around 2017, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against B on the charge of embezzlement and fraud, but the prosecutor in charge decided that all of the above cases of the complaint was suspected (Evidence of Evidence).

(Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office 2017 type 7234, 2017 type 7935).(b)

The plaintiff appealed to the Seoul High Prosecutor's Office and filed a complaint with the Seoul High Prosecutor's Office, but the appeal was dismissed. While the plaintiff filed an application for a ruling with the Seoul High Prosecutor's Office, the application was dismissed.

Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2017 Early 4140, 2017 early 4399).

On February 19, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the disclosure of information on investigation reports and results reports, suspect statements, and B’s entry into and departure from the Chinese Construction Bank, and the records of fraudulent complaint cases, including B’s entry into and departure from the Chinese Construction Bank, and the results reports, suspect statements, and B’s trademark cost receipt (hereinafter “each of the above information”). On February 19, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff refusing perusal and copying on the ground that each of the above information of this case constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 22 subparag. 2 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecution’s Office Affairs.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition, and the Defendant added the grounds for disposition that each of the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 and 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Prosecution Preservation Work Rules are merely administrative rules, and thus it is not allowed to impose restrictions on the inspection and copying on the grounds of such administrative rules. 2) Each of the instant information.