1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant applied for the disclosure of information on January 5, 2012 to the plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2:

(1) On January 5, 2012, the Plaintiff requested on January 5, 2012 that “the head of the headquarters in charge of computer resources management to disclose the document details related to the development, maintenance, management, etc. of the personnel information management system requested by the personnel management department (personnel development department) from the beginning of 2005 to the end of 2011” (hereinafter “application for information disclosure on January 5, 2012”).

(2) On January 27, 2012, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to “to disclose the details of entertainment expenses and conference expenses (including the date of use as the original electronic data, users, users, entertainment places, etc.; hereinafter “use details of entertainment expenses, etc.”) after 2008.”

(3) On January 5, 2012, the Defendant did not make a decision on whether to disclose information within 20 days from the filing date of the application for disclosure of information on January 5, 2012 and the filing date of each request for disclosure of information on January 27, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1248, Apr. 19, 2012) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1248, Apr. 27, 2012). (2) The Plaintiff requested the disclosure of information to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”) on April 19, 2012 and the Defendant requested the disclosure of information pursuant to the request on January 27, 2012.

2. Accordingly, on January 15, 2013, the Committee constitutes a special corporation established by Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Information Disclosure Act and Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. The name of the user and the person in charge of the employee transaction in the enemy column among the information that the Plaintiff requested to disclose upon the application for information disclosure on January 27, 2012 is highly likely to infringe on the confidentiality and freedom of privacy.