On April 1, 2020, the Defendant's establishment promotion committee for the redevelopment of B houses (approval on January 21, 2013) that was made to the Plaintiff on April 1, 2020.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 10, 2017, the Plaintiff is a co-owner who acquired Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground Building C (hereinafter “instant building”) due to sale and purchase.

B. On July 15, 2010, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor: (a) designated the Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Seoul Metropolitan City Seoul Metropolitan Government D Il-gi 46,148.20 square meters as “B-gu Rearrangement Zone for Redevelopment of Housing” (hereinafter “instant rearrangement Zone”).

(c)

On June 7, 2011, the Defendant approved the “B Promotion Committee for the Establishment of Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Cooperatives” (hereinafter “Promotion Committee of this case”) comprised of the consent of 51.69% from among 446 owners of land, etc. in the instant rearrangement zone.

(d)

However, on November 26, 2012, some owners of the land, etc. in the instant improvement zone applied for dissolution of the promotion committee to the Defendant. The Defendant accepted this and revoked the approval of the promotion committee of this case on January 21, 2013.

E. On July 4, 2013, the Special Metropolitan City Mayor publicly announced the cancellation of the rearrangement zone of this case (Seoul E).

F. On March 27, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a non-disclosure decision (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) with the Defendant on the ground that on April 1, 2020, the instant information contains a decision on whether to dissolve the instant promotion committee, including land owners, and is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals if disclosed, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant made a non-disclosure decision pursuant to Article 9(1)6 of the same Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is based on whether the revocation of the approval of the instant promotion committee was based on the calculation of the legitimate consent to dissolution, and also revocation of the said approval.