1. Each of the documents listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached hereto, which the Defendant had against the Plaintiff on April 29, 2016.

Details of the disposition

On April 29, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for the perusal and copying of each document listed in the separate sheet No. 1 on the grounds of “preparation of the pertinent lawsuit” against the Defendant through a defense counsel.

On April 29, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to allow the Plaintiff to peruse each of the documents listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) on the ground that there are grounds for rejection under Article 22 subparag. 4 and 5 of the Rules on the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Office.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including additional numbers), the overall purport of each disposition of this case as to the legitimacy of each disposition of this case, which the plaintiff alleged by the plaintiff as the ground for each disposition of this case, is not a ground for each disposition of this case since the defendant's assertion by the party concerned as to whether each disposition of this case is legitimate, "business guidelines for the inspection of records", "guidelines for the receipt of a complaint and the delivery of copies", and "public prosecutor's office preservation rules" do not constitute an order delegated by the law under Article 9 (1) 1 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter "Information Disclosure Act"), and each of the documents listed in the separate list No. 1 does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 6

[Plaintiff] The original law firm B (Attorney C in charge) applied for the inspection and copying of each of the documents listed in the separate sheet in accordance with Article 266-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the above provision is about the documents kept by the prosecutor after the prosecution.

Furthermore, in full view of the provisions of subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 2, Article 4(1) and Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, the citizen’s application for inspection and copying of documents held and managed by public institutions shall be deemed to constitute a claim for information disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act. The application is based on the method of requesting information disclosure under Article 10 of the Information Disclosure Act, etc.