1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The following facts are acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or a whole purport of the pleading in Gap evidence 1.

A. On December 23, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for disclosure of the following information with the chief of the Fence Chief Police Station:

1) From January 1, 2012 to December 20, 2013, the details of the budget for specific business expenses, the details of expenditure (hereinafter “instant information”) of the Seoyang Police Station (hereinafter “instant information”) at the Seoyang Police Station from January 1, 2012 to December 20, 2013, and the details of the marketing expenses, the details of the use of business operating expenses, and the evidence of the use thereof from January 1, 2013 to December 23, 2013

B. On January 2, 2014, in the course of computer inputs each of the above claims, the head of the Nanyang Police Station rendered a decision to disclose the information of this case only on the ground that the specific service expenses of the Nanyang Police Station, other than the Nanyang Police Station, were mistaken for the request for disclosure of the information of this case as the request for disclosure of specific service expenses by the head of the Nanyang Police Station, other than the Nanyang Police Station, did not allocate the budget, and did not take any measure against the request for disclosure of

(C) Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the head of Seoyang Police Station to confirm the illegality of the above omission (non-disposition against the request for disclosure of the instant information) and was sentenced to a favorable judgment on November 27, 2014 (Seoul District Court 2014Guhap175). The judgment was finalized around that time. On November 2, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was obligated to pay KRW 7,00,000 to the Plaintiff as compensation for the non-disclosure of the instant information and multiple diseases (such as high pressure and urology, and urology) of the instant case (under the said circumstances, the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress and burden in the course of the administrative litigation, and under the influence of urology and urology, etc., two or more times in the course of the administrative litigation.

However, the facts under paragraph (1) alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress as alleged above due to the non-disclosure of the information of this case, and there is also evidence to support that the public official belonging to the Defendant violated the law by intention or negligence in the administrative litigation procedure.