1. On March 30, 2016, a list of information subject to non-disclosure in the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for confirmation of the provision of communications data with the SK Telecom Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SK Telecom”), and received a written confirmation from the Defendant on the 15th of the same month that “SK Telecom was provided with communications data based on the document number-2965 under Article 83(3) of the Telecommunications Business Act as the document number-2965 of the Telecommunications Business Act, and received a request from the Defendant for the provision of communications data on November 19, 2015.”

B. On March 17, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for disclosure of the written request for provision of data with the Defendant to the SK Telecom (the request for provision of data under Article 83(3) of the Telecommunications Business Act, stating reasons for the request, relation with the relevant user, the scope of necessary data, and the request for provision of data stating the position and name of the person with the authority to approve under Article 53(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter “instant information”).

C. On March 30, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision not to disclose the instant information to the Plaintiff on the ground that the information pertaining to national security is not subject to the Information Disclosure Act pursuant to Article 4(3) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”). Even if the information is subject to the Information Disclosure Act, it constitutes non-disclosure information under Article 9(1)2, 4, and 6 of the same Act.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant filed a claim with the telecommunications business operator for disclosure of the written request for provision of data, but the Defendant did not recover it after submitting the written request for provision of data to the SK Telecom.

Therefore, since the defendant did not retain and manage the information requested by the plaintiff, the plaintiff does not make a non-disclosure decision of this case.