1. The Defendant’s disposition rejecting the disclosure of information against the Plaintiff on October 14, 2014 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 6, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for disclosure of the officially assessed individual land price and the acquisition tax base by parcel of land in 2006, which was traded from December 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008, among the land located in Kimpo-dong and Seodong-dong, in the form of an electromagnetic wave day.

B. On October 14, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff only disclosed the officially assessed individual land price in 2006 of the land located in Kim Jong-dong and Kangyang-dong, and the acquisition tax base (hereinafter “instant information”) constituted “information pertaining to the management and trade secrets of corporations, organizations, or individuals, which, if disclosed, could seriously harm legitimate interests of corporations, etc.” under Article 9(1)7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition on October 14, 2014. However, the Defendant dismissed the instant objection on October 28, 2014 on the ground that the instant information constitutes “information stipulated as confidential or confidential in accordance with any other Act or any order delegated by any other Act” under Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim was not made by the Plaintiff on the ground that “The current status of imposition of development charges for multi-family housing and golf courses” which the Plaintiff did not request disclosure constitutes confidential information under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act. The instant information does not constitute non-disclosure information under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

In addition, Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act, which is claimed by the defendant against the plaintiff's objection and the lawsuit of this case.