1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is that the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized by this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case of additional determination as to the assertion that the Plaintiff emphasizes as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Therefore, the assertion is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the

The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion on additional determination is that the Plaintiff was notified of a non-disclosure decision on the instant agreement among the information requested to be disclosed on April 19, 2016, and thus, the Plaintiff’s disposition that the Plaintiff raised as the subject of the instant lawsuit is not a disposition that “the disclosure of the instant agreement is closed within the scope of the request for disclosure of the agreement.”

The instant agreement constitutes information subject to disclosure because it falls under the proviso (a) and (b) of Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

Judgment

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 8 as to the disposition subject to adjudication and the whole pleadings, the defendant shall disclose the agreement concluded with the ocean-going passenger company among the "the instant agreement" and "the contract concluded with the ocean-going passenger company" of the plaintiff's request for disclosure, but the agreement of this case shall be concluded most recently, but the agreement of this case shall be concluded on the ground that it constitutes a case where a person notified of the decision on whether to disclose information pursuant to Article 6 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Information Disclosure Act requests again without justifiable grounds.

According to the above facts, the defendant decided not to disclose the agreement of this case upon internal termination of the claim for disclosure of the agreement of this case. This is substantially the same as that of the non-disclosure decision and its expression on the agreement of this case which the plaintiff is subject to the judgment of this case. Thus, the two dispositions that the plaintiff's internal payment is identical.

[Plaintiff's notice of non-disclosure decision of July 7, 2015 (Evidence A No. 2) is a disposition subject to the instant adjudication, but the said disposition is the filing period.