1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for disclosure of information with the Defendant to disclose a notice of decision (excluding personal information) on the claim for disclosure and decision on partial disclosure among all (other than the Plaintiff) applications filed with the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter “instant information”).

B. On January 18, 2013, the Defendant rejected disclosure on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). 【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, and description of Gap evidence No. 1

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant’s assertion is filing a lawsuit seeking the disclosure of information with multiple public institutions from around 2007 to January 201, 201, which is 11.8% of the total number of lawsuits claiming the disclosure of information during the same period.

The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case constitutes abuse of jurisdiction, as it obtains litigation costs, obtains attorney's fees, or evades labor in prisons and leads the employees of the relevant administrative agency.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. Not filing a lawsuit against the same rejection disposition against the same claim for information disclosure, but filing a lawsuit against multiple requests for information disclosure and seeking the revocation thereof from each public agency constitutes infringement of individual legal interests.

The Plaintiff’s filing of a lawsuit seeking the disclosure of information from around 2007 to January 2014 and filing a lawsuit seeking the revocation of multiple measures of refusal of recommendation cannot be said to be an abuse of right.

However, the above reasons alleged by the defendant are the same.