1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 26, 2015, the Plaintiff is a prisoner who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 20 years for attempted murder, etc. from September 2, 2016 to the Gwangju Prison.

B. On February 27, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant for disclosure of information disclosure to disclose “the collection place of information (a criminal investigation report) on the Plaintiff submitted by the Defendant as a document No. 2 in each of the instant cases No. 2018-Gu District Court No. 2018-Gu, 2018-Gu, No. 1889, No. 1889.

C. Accordingly, on March 11, 2019, the Defendant decided on March 11, 2019 to disclose the following: “Information (Investigation Report) about the claimant submitted as a document No. 2 in each case No. 2018-Gu District Court 2012 and 2018-Gu 18899 to the public: “In the case of the applicant, the investigative report No. 2014-10313: Investigation Report No. 2013 of the Busan Coast Guard (the suspect’s attempt to flee).” ① The collection place of the investigation report was bound by the applicant’s “admission Register” of the applicant’s “at the time of transfer to the Gwangju prison,” and ② the applicable statutes were “Article 19 of the Guidelines on Classification of Expropriation and Transfer Records, etc.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1 and 2

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Plaintiff’s disclosure of the investigation report among the dispositions of this case that the Plaintiff was bound to the Plaintiff’s “registration book” of the Plaintiff transferred to Gwangju prison on September 2, 2016 constitutes a non-disclosure disposition that actually refused to disclose information, and the instant disposition was unlawful for failing to transfer it to the competent agency pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”). As such, regarding the Defendant’s assertion that the instant disposition was unlawful, the Defendant already disclosed the information the Plaintiff requested to disclose from the standpoint of the Defendant, and in this case, there is no room to apply Article 11(4) of the Information Disclosure Act.