1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 29, 2016, the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Acting for the Prosecutor’s Office requested the Plaintiff to issue a summary order on the grounds of the following facts charged (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da1939), and the Plaintiff filed a request for formal trial on February 24, 2016.

On December 7, 2015, the Defendant of insultd on January 22, 2016 (Seoul Central District Court 2016Ma682) (the Plaintiff) made a public insultd the victim by the victim E, a subway security officer, from among the city expenses, sent home to the Defendant at the guide room of the Seoul Dongjak-gu Seoul Central District Court, and the victim E, a subway security officer, from among the city expenses, sent home to the Defendant at the guide room, and passed by many unspecified passengers, at the direction room where they pass by the Defendant.

2. The Defendant notified the victim E of the same date, time, and place as referred to in Paragraph 1, that “I would file a criminal charge against the police by an act of noise.” The Defendant expressed the victim’s desire to “I will go to go to the police,” and assaulted the victim with the victim’s shoulder.

B. On December 8, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for the disclosure of information on the fact that, between around 21:30 on December 7, 2015 and around 23:00, the Plaintiff asked the person who was the team leader at the time to leave the two lines from the subway line 4 to the subway line. As such, the Plaintiff’s request for the disclosure of information on the entire video recording records (hereinafter “instant 1 information”) and the duties of the said subway security personnel, which were sent by one and two police officers from the subway line via the subway line to the earth, with the Plaintiff going along along the earth and carried out on the earth (hereinafter “instant 1 information”).

Accordingly, on December 11, 2015, Defendant Matro disclosed the duties of subway security officers, but the instant information constitutes non-disclosure information under Article 9(1)4 and 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).