1. On June 18, 2015, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s disclosure of information as stated in the separate sheet.

1. The plaintiff is the operator of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Development Project, which is in progress in the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On December 2008, the Plaintiff purchased or acquired without compensation the land listed in each of the annexed Table (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) from Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Song-gu”) (hereinafter “Song-gu”).

On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment with the Seoul Eastern District Court (2014Gahap105071) (hereinafter “the lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment”).

In a lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff is the cause of filing a claim that “The land of this case should be reverted to the Plaintiff free of charge as it falls under the previous public facilities under Article 66(1) of the Urban Development Act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s purchase price of each of the above land paid to Songpa-gu constitutes unjust enrichment.”

In a lawsuit seeking return of unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff filed a request for disclosure of information on May 26, 2015, which is the representative of Songpa-gu and the Defendant managing the cadastral records of the instant land, as indicated in the attached list (where each of the instant land, etc. was first registered or changed on the land cadastre, or was prepared in the process of dividing it; hereinafter “information of this case”).

However, on June 18, 2015, the Defendant’s disclosure of the instant information to the Plaintiff based on Article 9(1)4 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) on the ground that “information directly and specifically related to a trial in which the instant information is in progress and constitutes information that is highly probable to affect fair trial or trial outcome.”