1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant for information disclosure to the effect that the entire case records of Jeju District Prosecutors’ Office 2013 Petition293 (hereinafter “instant case records”) were disclosed in the form of copies and output.

B. On October 4, 2013, the Defendant rejected disclosure on the ground that the investigation report among the instant records (hereinafter “information”) constituted information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)1 and 4 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant’s assertion ① (1) after January 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a suit seeking revocation of a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information throughout the country from 2007 to January 21, 2014, account for 155 cases in total, (11.8% out of the total 1,304 cases in the information disclosure claim filed nationwide during the same period; (2) the Plaintiff shows winning rate of 86.8% from the above lawsuits, but there are many cases where the Plaintiff does not receive the disclosed information after winning the lawsuit; (3) while the Plaintiff has received the cost of lawsuit in the winning case, and there are cases where the Plaintiff claims the cost of lawsuit against the winning; (4) the Plaintiff appears to have the purpose of filing the lawsuit is to recover the cost of lawsuit; (5) the Plaintiff is appointed a legal representative even if there is no need for separate legal knowledge and experience in the information disclosure lawsuit, and (5) the Plaintiff has received the Plaintiff’s fee as the litigation expenses, taking full account of the aforementioned multiple claims against the Plaintiff among the information disclosure, and the Defendant’s total number of administrative prison from 13.