1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. A disposition rejecting part of the disclosure of information made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on September 13, 2018 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 29, 2018, the Plaintiff stated that on the Defendant on August 29, 2018, the details of the request for disclosure of information submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant (Evidence No. 1) are as follows: (i) PET [The PET], (ii) PET (PET), (iii) certified English research, (iv), and (v) the content of the request for disclosure of information submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in the aggregate of interviews (Evidence No. 1) but there is no dispute between the parties to the claim that “the average of the interview scores of all the last registrants of the pharmaceutical college at the pharmaceutical college” is disclosed. However, there is no dispute between the parties to the claim for disclosure of “the average of the interview scores of all the last registrants of the pharmaceutical college at the college.”

(See this Court’s First Statement of Pleadings) (5) The aggregate of interviews claimed information disclosure on the instant information.

B. On September 13, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to disclose the instant information (n) to the public and to the public on the following grounds: (i) the instant information is a subjective assessment result; (ii) it is highly likely that the instant dispute may arise because it is a subjective assessment result.

[N] Of the above dispositions, the disposition of non-disclosure to the information of this case (n) is a "disposition of this case".

On November 26, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal seeking the disclosure of the instant information, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the decision on February 12, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant information is merely an access information as statistical data, and even if it is disclosed, it cannot be deemed that there is a high probability that the Defendant’s fair performance of the Defendant’s duties of access management would significantly interfere with the Defendant’s fair performance of the duties. Rather, the disclosure of the information would guarantee citizens’ right to know and enhance transparency in the citizen’s participation in and operation of the national university entrance administration