1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 1, 2010, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose information on the actual share status and changes in the name of the Defendant’s B and his family in relation to the land owned by the Defendant, and ② the purpose and period of lease to the entire place of business leased by the Defendant, but the Defendant rejected disclosure on September 13, 2010 on the ground that the information was subject to non-disclosure.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an objection on October 11, 2010 and demanded the disclosure of information on the entire site leased by the Defendant, but the Defendant dismissed the information on the grounds that it was subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 and 7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Act”), and filed a claim with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission for revocation on November 14, 2010.

C. On May 24, 2011, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling that the disclosure of information requested by the Plaintiff constitutes information that may significantly impede the fair performance of duties or research and development (Article 5) or that the disclosure of information pertaining to business secrets of corporations, etc., which, if disclosed, cannot be deemed to constitute information that is likely to seriously undermine the legitimate interests of corporations, etc., and thus, the Defendant’s rejection disposition is illegal and unjust.

After that, on December 22, 2011, the Plaintiff requested disclosure of the first lease contract date for each company, ② the number of extension of the lease period and the contract method, ③ the decision on the extension of the lease period by internal sector, and was rejected by the Defendant on the ground that it constitutes information subject to non-disclosure and internal documents under Article 9(1)5 and 7 of the Act. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed it on February 21, 201.

E. After that, on May 21, 2012, the Plaintiff made the lease purpose, lessee, location, area, purpose, and lease period of the leased establishment to the Defendant.