1. Among the instant lawsuits, each of the documents listed in the separate sheet No. 2015 type No. 5336 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff and the plaintiff's father Eul are the members of the clan C (hereinafter "the clan of this case"), D are the members of the clan of this case, and Eul are the attorneys of the clan of this case.

B. The Plaintiff filed a complaint on behalf of B on the ground that “E was present as a witness on the date of trial of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against the Sungwon District Court Branch Branch Decision 2012Gohap108 (Embezzlement), and provided a perjury with respect to the registration fee and contingent fee agreement between E and the clan of this case.”

However, on September 24, 2015, E was subject to the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office 2015-type 5336 decision on non-prosecution of suspicion (Evidence of Evidence).

C. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with D, E, etc. on the ground that “Notwithstanding the agreement that two members of the clan of this case, who were members of the clan of this case, agreed to bear the registration tax, etc. in the course of recovering the ownership of the real estate, which is the property of the clan, they incurred property damage to the clan of this case by spending it.”

D, however, on May 4, 2016, by Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2015 type 91285, the non-prosecution decision was rendered by each of the charges (Evidence of Evidence).

In order to file an appeal against the non-prosecution decision and submit the materials for reinforcement, the Plaintiff filed an application for inspection and copying of each of the documents listed in the separate sheet No. 2015-type No. 5336 and each of the documents listed in the separate sheet No. 2015-type No. 91285 (hereinafter “instant documents”) in the case records No. 2015-type No. 5336.

E. As to the Plaintiff’s above application for inspection and copying, the Defendant rendered each non-permission decision on May 17, 2016 to the Plaintiff on the ground that the pertinent documents fall under “the disclosure of records may impair the honor, privacy, safety of body, and peace of life of a person involved in the case.”

The records of the instant case No. 2015 type No. 5336 are as follows.