1. The Defendant’s refusal to disclose information on July 7, 2015 to the Plaintiff as indicated in the attached Table 1.

1. On June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff, a non-governmental organization, requested the Defendant to disclose information on the information listed in the attached Table 1 list (hereinafter “instant information”).

On July 7, 2015, the Defendant rejected the disclosure of information on the ground that the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant refusal disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The non-contentious facts, entry of Gap’s evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act, and thus, the Defendant’s refusal disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The basic property for profit-making purposes of the relevant school foundation in the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act, unlike the basic property for education directly used for school education, is expected to be a profit-making business in order to support the operating expenses of the corporation and the school. Unlike the basic property for education directly used for school education, the person in charge of the management of property for profit-making business is the chief director of the corporation, and the accounts for profit-making business of the school foundation, is accounts separately for separate accounts. The instant information related to the current status of basic property for profit-making purposes of the school foundation is about the management secrets of the school foundation. Thus, it constitutes an abuse of rights under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act, because it constitutes an abuse of rights under Article 9(2) of the Information Disclosure Act.

C. Attached Form 2.