1. The Defendant’s rejection disposition against the Plaintiff on September 17, 2013 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for information disclosure concerning the notice of decision on the application for disclosure and decision on partial disclosure (excluding personal information) among all applications for information disclosure received at the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant information”). B

On September 17, 2013, pursuant to Article 9(1)6 of the former Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions (amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”), the Defendant rejected the instant information disclosure on the ground that “where matters concerning individuals included in the relevant information are disclosed, a notice of notice on disclosure of information requested by the Plaintiff may infringe on an individual’s privacy or freedom.” The Defendant disclosed only the current status of disclosure and partial disclosure during the pertinent period.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant information claimed by the Plaintiff does not fall under the information subject to non-disclosure provided by the Information Disclosure Act, and it is possible to disclose the information except where it is likely to infringe on an individual’s privacy or freedom. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful. 2) The instant disposition is legitimate on the same grounds as the Defendant’s assertion. The Plaintiff’s claim for disclosure of information and the institution of administrative litigation are made repeatedly against the public prosecutor’s office nationwide for the purpose of recovering litigation costs rather than guaranteeing the Plaintiff’s right to remedy or right to know, and is seeking information disclosure for the purpose of preventing the Defendant and other public prosecutor’s offices. This constitutes abuse of rights.