1. On December 16, 2014, the Defendant’s reading and copying of the records by the Sung-nam District Prosecutors’ Office 2014 type No. 28640 against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that “B and C, although they did not have the intent or ability to pay the price, obtained a provisional registration of D Apartment 403 and 404 from the Plaintiff and obtained it by fraud, and that “B and C, in collusion with E, concluded a false sales contract for the said apartment in order to evade compulsory execution, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in collusion with the Plaintiff.” The Plaintiff filed a complaint against B, C, and E (hereinafter “suspects”) under suspicion of fraud, etc.

However, on December 10, 2014, suspects were subject to the disposition of non-prosecution on charges of suspicion (defluence of evidence).

B. The Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the inspection and copying of the investigation records of the case described in the above paragraph (a) (hereinafter “the investigation records of this case”), documents of the principal’s statement (written statement), documents of the principal’s statement, documents of each suspect’s statement (written interrogation records), all documents submitted by each suspect, and records list.

C. On December 16, 2014, the Defendant permitted the perusal and copying of the Plaintiff’s statements, documents, and documents submitted by the Defendant, among the records of this case, on the ground that “the disclosure of records is likely to seriously harm the honor, privacy, stability of life and body, or peace of life of a person involved in the case (Article 22(1)2 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Office)” is “the disclosure of records is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation, privacy, stability of life and body, or peace of life of a person involved in the case.” On the record list, the Defendant rejected the perusal and copying on the ground that “the disclosure of records is likely to cause any divulgence or unnecessary dispute (Article 22(

(hereinafter referred to as “instant documents”; and the decision refusing to allow the inspection and copying of the instant documents is referred to as “instant disposition”; [Grounds for recognition] without dispute; and evidence A Nos. 1 through 4.