1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On July 22, 2011, the Plaintiff is under medical treatment and custody after having been sentenced to imprisonment with labor for three years and six months at the Seoul High Court for violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse and having been sentenced to medical treatment and custody from October 24, 201 to the Public Medical Treatment and Custody Center.

On February 1, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the disclosure of information on “the aggregate of the monthly number of persons and the total number of persons for which medical treatment and custody has been terminated due to medical treatment leave from March to March, 2017.”

(hereinafter “Request for Information Disclosure”). On February 14, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to disclose the information described in the foregoing paragraph (1) to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant rendered a decision to disclose the information on the ground that the information described in the foregoing paragraph (2) (hereinafter “instant information”) is non-existent information that the Defendant did not prepare or acquire and manage it.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition rejecting the disclosure of information” (based on recognition). 【Disposition Rejecting the Disclosure of Information of this case’s case’s existence of no dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire argument as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s provisional termination of the Defendant’s main safety defense is determined as the need for continuous medical treatment and custody at the Medical Treatment and Custody Office. However, the provisional termination of medical treatment and custody

Since the defendant does not retain and manage the information of this case, there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the disposition rejecting the information of this case.

Judgment

In light of the fact that the information disclosure system is a system that discloses information held and managed by a public institution in its state, it is sufficient to prove that there is a considerable probability that a person seeking information disclosure will hold and manage the information by an administrative agency.

However, if a public institution fails to retain and manage such information, there is no legal interest to seek revocation of the disposition rejecting information disclosure, unless there is a special reason.

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 12 Decided June 12, 2014