1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the information listed in the separate sheet No. 2 shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s February 4, 2015.

1. The Defendant was entrusted by the Minister of Security and Public Administration pursuant to Article 8(1) and (3) of the former Administrative Justice Act (Amended by Act No. 12844, Nov. 19, 2014); and the second test of the qualifying examination for administrative agents on October 2014 (hereinafter “instant test”).

The method of the examination of this case is composed of 4 subjects of the Civil Code, the theory of administrative procedure, the theory of office management, and the practical law of administrative affairs (one hundred points each), and four questions per subject shall be drawn up.

The criteria for passing the examination of this case are "a person whose score of each subject is not less than 40 points, and whose average score of all subjects is not less than 60 points," and where the number of successful examinees is less than 330 persons (287 general administrative officers, foreign language translation administrative officers, and three technical administrative officers: 40 persons) who have obtained not less than 40 points in all subjects within the scope of the minimum number of successful examinees, successful examinees shall be additionally determined in the order of higher average points for all subjects from among those who have obtained not less than 40 points in all subjects, and where the number of successful examinees exceeds the minimum number of successful

The Plaintiff applied for the instant examination, and on December 17, 2014, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s disposition on the ground that the points of the Plaintiff’s practical law subject fall short of 40 points.

On January 28, 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose each information listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant information”) to the public as to whether the person preparing the Administrative Agent Practice Act and the person giving the marks in the instant test are the same person or not, but on February 4, 2015, the Defendant made a non-disclosure decision pursuant to Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Information Disclosure Act”) on the ground that the disclosure of the instant information may interfere with the fair performance of the test affairs if the information is disclosed, and whether the applicant and the marks are the same person.