1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. According to the reasoning of the disposition Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 5, and Eul evidence No. 4-1, the plaintiff requested the defendant to disclose the information of this case on October 2, 2012. However, on October 11, 2012, the defendant refused the plaintiff's request for information disclosure (hereinafter "the disposition of this case") on the ground that the information of this case constitutes non-disclosure information under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act.

2. As to the plaintiff's claim to revoke the disposition of this case, the defendant asserts that the information of this case is not nonexistent because it has already been destroyed, and thus, we examine this point.

In principle, the information disclosure system has the burden of proving that it is highly probable that the public institution holds and manages the information that is held and managed by the public institution as a system that discloses the information held and managed by the public institution as a system in its state. However, if the public institution held and manages the information that is sought to be disclosed, but no later exists after being destroyed by a document that contains the information, etc. after being kept and managed by the public institution, the burden of proving that the information is no longer held and managed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12707, Dec. 9, 2004).

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du9459, Jan. 13, 2006). The fact that the Defendant produced and stored the relevant information on each date indicated in the attached table of the Information Disclosure Claim List is no dispute between the parties.

However, if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in the evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, and 6, the information in this case is the document produced and kept by the defendant's audit room, and is classified and preserved by the defendant.