1. The Defendant’s refusal to disclose information against the Plaintiff on March 22, 2016, as described in attached Tables 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as an employee of Nonparty B (hereinafter “foreign institution”), demanded the Defendant to take measures, such as guarantee of status, by alleging that he was disadvantaged by the internal report from the Nonparty’s institution. However, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion and completed the case.

(hereinafter “instant measure”). (b)

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant measure and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and rejected the Defendant’s request for disclosure of information as follows.

1) On March 15, 2016, the Plaintiff’s each information listed in attached Tables 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter “instant information”) to the Defendant on March 15, 2016.

Although the Defendant filed a claim for disclosure, on March 22, 2016, the Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) provides that each of the above information is subject to the disclosure by a public institution.

(2) On June 22, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose the information indicated in attached Table 1 List 4 (hereinafter “instant information”). However, on July 6, 2016, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision on the ground that the said information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4, 5, and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff filed a claim for disclosure of each of the information of this case in order to submit it as evidence to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the defendant had already submitted the information of this case Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the plaintiff served the information of this case Nos. 1, 2, and 3 among the lawsuits of this case.