1. On January 15, 2020, the Defendant rejected the disclosure of information as to the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 with respect to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 2, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for all disclosure, including a written reply to the measures taken at the beginning of the pertinent Si ( September 6, 2019).

B. On January 15, 2020, the Defendant disclosed the remaining information except for the information listed in the Schedule 1 among the information for which the Plaintiff requested disclosure, and the information listed in the Schedule 1 (hereinafter “instant information”) was not disclosed pursuant to Article 26 of the Act on Public Audit and Article 9(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act and Article 9(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act on the ground that it pertains to audit.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [The grounds for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. 1) The Defendant presented the instant disposition based on Article 26 of the Public Audit Act (hereinafter “Public Audit Act”) and Article 9(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

However, Article 26 of the Public Audit Act provides that the audit results of central administrative agencies, etc. shall, in principle, be disclosed, but the information falling under each subparagraph of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act may not be disclosed. The defendant merely stated Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act in the disposition of this case, but did not present any information of this case falling under any subparagraph of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act.

Ultimately, the instant disposition was unlawful without presenting the grounds and reasons.

In addition, it is unreasonable that the defendant's disposal ground under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Information Disclosure Act should reach the lawsuit of this case.

B. The instant information may be reasonably recognized as significantly impeding the fair performance of duties, if disclosed, as matters pertaining to the "audit" under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Information Disclosure Act.