The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

On December 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the chief prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “the chief prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office”) seeking the revocation of the non-permission disposition, including the inspection of non-prosecutions, by the Seoul Administrative Court 2015 Guhap82181.

On December 9, 2016, the above court rendered a judgment that “the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant (the Seoul Central District Prosecutor)” upon partially accepting the Plaintiff’s claim.

On December 29, 2016, the above judgment became final and conclusive as the Dog of the appeal period.

On November 28, 2019, the Prosecutor General of the Seoul Central District Court filed an application with the Seoul Administrative Court No. 2019 Ah 13316 to determine the amount of litigation costs (hereinafter “related application case”). On February 24, 2020, the above court rendered a decision that “the costs of lawsuit to be repaid to the respondent (the Seoul Central District Prosecutor)” (the Plaintiff) is KRW 160,235.”

On March 2, 2020, the Director of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office filed an immediate appeal (hereinafter “Immediate appeal of this case”) with Seoul High Court 2020 Man 1109 on March 2, 202.

On March 5, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of the information listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “information of this case”). On March 18, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the disclosure of the information of this case on the grounds that the above information constitutes grounds prescribed in Article 2 of the Addenda (Act No. 17690, Dec. 22, 2020) of the former Information Disclosure Act, Article 9(1)5 of the former Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 17690, Dec. 22, 2020; hereinafter “former Information Disclosure Act”).

On March 26, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant to disclose the instant information, but the Defendant, on April 8, 2020, issued a disposition rejecting the disclosure of the instant information for reasons, as information corresponding to the internal review process, which constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the former Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “instant information”).