1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1, according to the records in Gap evidence No. 1, October 14, 2014, the plaintiff stated the information disclosure filing date as October 15, 2014. However, according to Eul evidence No. 2, the filing date is October 14, 2014.

Although the Defendant requested that the Defendant disclose an application for subscription to the National Pension Scheme as at April 1, 1999, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on October 21, 2014 on the ground that the above application for subscription was destroyed and thus it cannot be disclosed.

In light of the fact that the defendant's refusal disposition against the above request for information disclosure is illegal, it is sufficient to prove that the information disclosure applicant has a considerable probability of holding and managing the information by the administrative agency, in light of the fact that the information disclosure system is a system that discloses the information held and managed by the public agency.

However, if a public institution fails to retain and manage such information, there is no legal interest to seek revocation of the disposition rejecting information disclosure, unless there is a special reason to the contrary.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Du9459 Decided January 13, 2006, etc.). Meanwhile, the applicant for disclosure bears the burden of proving that there is a considerable probability that he/she will hold and manage the information for which disclosure is sought by a public institution. However, if the information for which disclosure is sought is held and managed at once by a public institution, but the document containing the information is no longer destroyed after being discarded, the applicant for disclosure bears the burden of proving that the information is no longer owned and managed by the public institution.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Du18918 Decided January 24, 2013). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant’s “self-employed insured report” is deemed to be a “self-employed insured report” in full view of the following: (a) health class; (b) evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 5-2.