The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of this court's decision to the plaintiff's defense prior to the merits, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this case's assertion is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) modified the first claim of the Plaintiff, and sought revocation of the disposition of refusal on the part of the Defendant’s materials related to the approval of the use of four new buildings of this case as of January 30, 2015, on the completion report of supervision and the completion of construction.

However, at the time of the request for information disclosure, the Plaintiff merely stated the information disclosure application as “integrated data related to the approval of use” and requested information disclosure, the content and scope of which are unclear.

(2) According to Article 10(1)2 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”), a person who requests information disclosure needs to enter “matters of information requested to be disclosed” in the Information Disclosure Request. The Plaintiff’s above stated matters are not specified to the extent that the contents and scope of information cannot be determined from the perspective of the general public of the society as to the subject matter of the request for information disclosure. Thus, it cannot be deemed a legitimate request for information disclosure.

(3) Since the Defendant’s refusal to disclose information to the Plaintiff as of January 30, 2015 is against the specified information, it cannot be said that it is the same as the rejection disposition against the specified information for which the Plaintiff seeks revocation by the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it lacks the applicable eligibility.

B. (1) The data submitted for the approval of the use of new buildings need to be submitted under the relevant laws and regulations, so the defendant, who is an administrative agency in charge of such affairs, is related thereto.