All appeals and supplementary appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal and the grounds of incidental appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense that the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal seeking revocation as Seoul Administrative Court No. 2012Guhap3645 corresponds to the Defendant’s refusal of disclosure of information as of November 29, 2011, and the subject matter of the instant disposition or omission, which is disputed as the instant lawsuit, is clearly different from the instant disposition or the instant omission, and there is no circumstance that the Defendant’s refusal of disclosure of information as of November 29, 201, constitutes the premise of the instant claim. Thus, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense that the part of the Plaintiff’s application seeking extension of the Plaintiff’s claim for disclosure of the details of business promotion expenses of three departments since 209, which

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to

B. As to Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission under Article 4 subparagraph 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act is to remove the passive state of illegality, which is an omission or non-compliance, by prompt response of an administrative agency, by ascertaining that the omission is illegal if the administrative agency fails to comply with a legal response obligation to respond within a reasonable period of time despite the existence of a legal obligation to respond to an application based on a party’s legal or sound right.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu1634, May 14, 1996; 91Nu11278, Jun. 9, 1992). The lower court held that (i) although the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for disclosure of information on January 5, 2012, the Defendant did not decide whether to disclose the information within the period prescribed by law, and thus, (ii) the Plaintiff is deemed to have made a non-disclosure decision.