1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 16, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition to investigate the facts with the police officer in charge of the hearing auditor office of the East Sea Police Station on April 8, 201, and the Plaintiff filed a request for disclosure of information with the Dong Sea Police Station to disclose the process of processing the above acquired materials up to the present date on March 30, 2011. On April 7, 2011, the Dong Sea Police Station notified the Plaintiff that there should be no information non-disclosure decision. 2) On April 5, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition to investigate the facts with the police officer in charge of the hearing auditor office of the Dong Sea Police Station, and prepared a statement with the Plaintiff and the police officer in charge at the Dong Sea Police Station Inspector Office, and conducted an investigation with respect to the Plaintiff and the police officer in charge of video recording room on April 8, 2011.

B. On April 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on April 11, 2013, claiming that the police officer in charge of the B District District B of the Dong Police Station incurred damages due to his failure to pay KRW 1.5 million as compensation for damages. (2) In the aforementioned litigation procedure, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the East Sea Police Station for inquiry of the storage place of all documents and the document name, including the survey record as of April 8, 201, and the same response was made on August 14, 2013 that the East Sea Police Station did not have a video record related to the survey.

3. In other words, the Plaintiff filed an application with the East Sea Police Station for an order to submit a document on video records at the time. On October 16, 2013, the East Sea Police Station sent no video records at the time of the inquiry into fact, but it was not confirmed due to the memory and search error of the investigation officer at the time of the inquiry, and submitted a copy of the video records together with the statement that “The video records were confirmed as the re-verification was confirmed.”