1. On July 18, 2016, the Defendant’s history and high school based on the revised curriculum for the Plaintiff on July 18, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. All the curriculum books for middle and high schools were classified into authorized books or authorized books. On November 3, 2015, the Defendant issued a public announcement of the classification of national inspection approval for the curriculum books for middle and high schools (Public Notice No. 2015-78 of the Ministry of Education) with the content that the curriculum books for the history of middle and high schools and the Korean History Textbooks for the purpose of publishing them as government-designated books (hereinafter referred to as “government-designated curriculum books”). On the same day, the Defendant formulated the “basic plan for the compilation of curriculum books for the history of middle and high schools according to the revised curriculum in 2015,” and entrusted the compilation to the National Private History

B. On November 24, 2015, the Defendant and the National Institute of Korean History determined a list of 47 historical textbook authors composed of 47 professors, middle and high school teachers, etc. on November 24, 2015, through the publication of the official recruitment of authors. On November 30, 2015, the list of 16 historical textbook compilation deliberation committees consisting of 16 professors, middle and high school teachers, parents, etc. was finalized.

C. The Compilation Review Committee deliberated on the compilation standards of textbooks, correspondence, etc., and decided to take charge of the role of requiring correction and supplementation after reviewing and deliberating the Plaintiff of the textbook in the textbook writing process.

On June 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of the information on the history of a middle school and the compilation standard for Korean curriculum books for high school history (hereinafter “instant information”). However, on July 18, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision not to disclose the instant information on the ground that the instant information falls under Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(ii) [The facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1-3 and Eul evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) as shown in the Attachment of the relevant statutes;

B. Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that the information shall be subject to non-disclosure.