1. The Defendant’s rejection disposition against the Plaintiff on August 30, 2013 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 23, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of “Written Statements (other than Personal Information) in the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office No. 2012-Type No. 74737 (hereinafter “instant case”) (hereinafter “instant information”).

B. On August 30, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting disclosure of the instant information pursuant to Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute “information pertaining to an individual” under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act, which, if disclosed, could infringe on the privacy or freedom of private life.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act is unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that “Any information held and managed by a public institution shall be subject to disclosure: Provided, That information, such as resident registration numbers and resident registration numbers included in the relevant information, which, if disclosed, is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals, may not be disclosed.”

On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disclosure of the part other than personal information among the B’s written statements, which does not constitute “information pertaining to an individual and, if disclosed, likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of private life” under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act.

As to this, the defendant B-.