1. On December 12, 2019, the Defendant’s refusal of disclosure of information on each of the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached hereto against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 29, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of each information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant information”).

B. On December 12, 2019, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision on the ground that “The instant information is for the purpose of requesting the disclosure of information irrespective of the citizen’s right to know, regardless of the citizen’s right to know, demanding the disclosure of information as a complaint

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [The grounds for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Party’s assertion 1) The Official Information Disclosure Act of the Plaintiff’s Public Institution (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”)

(2) The Plaintiff’s claim seeking the disclosure of the instant information constitutes an abuse of rights, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s disclosure of the instant information is unlawful: (b) the Plaintiff’s disclosure of the information is not necessary information for the Plaintiff; (c) the Plaintiff’s disclosure of necessary data for the confirmation of facts; (d) the Plaintiff’s repeated filing of complaints; and (e) the Plaintiff’s claim for disclosure of information is inferred for the purpose of coercing the public officials in charge; and (e) the Plaintiff’s request for disclosure of information is inferred for the

(b) as shown in Appendix 2 of the relevant regulations.

C. Articles 1, 3, and 5(1) of the Information Disclosure Act provide that all citizens shall disclose information held and managed by public institutions in principle in order to guarantee citizens' right to know and secure citizens' participation in state affairs and transparency in state affairs. As such, a public institution requested to disclose information held and managed by the citizens does not fall under the grounds for non-disclosure provided by each subparagraph of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act.