1. On December 10, 2012, the defendant's refusal to copy the investigation records listed in the attached Table 1, which was against the plaintiff on December 10, 2012, is attached Form 1.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Upon occurrence of a personal information leakage case, the Plaintiff is Es Communications Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Es Communications Company”).

(2) On July 26, 2011, the hacking of the portal site operated by the portal site (hereinafter “instant hacking incident”) caused the occurrence of the incident in which personal information, such as ID, password, name, resident registration number, contact number, etc., was disclosed only 35 million persons stored in the Nt’s database due to the hacking of a person who was not registered. (hereinafter “instant hacking incident”).

3) The prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office investigated the instant hacking incident into the case of Articles 53971 [Violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Violation of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc.)] of the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office in 2012, and suspended prosecution on August 7, 2012 on the ground that the suspect’s whereabouts are unknown. (B) The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose all of the investigation records of the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “instant investigation records”) under Articles 5(1) and 10(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) on December 7, 2012.

2) On December 10, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision to refuse to disclose information regarding all matters recorded in the investigation records of the instant case on the ground that the investigation records of the instant case fall under each subparagraph of Article 22(1) of the Rules on the Military Prosecution Preservation Affairs (see Evidence A, e.g., evidence 2, referring to the investigation records listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant information”) with respect to the Plaintiff.

(C) On February 21, 2013, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the decision to disclose information non-disclosure on the documents listed in the attached Table 2 among the investigation records of this case against the Defendant at the Seoul Administrative Court.