1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who serves as the deputy head of the tourism graduate school department at the D University established and operated by the school foundation C.

B. On September 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the disclosure of information on the disbursement resolution, draft documents, and detailed statement and receipt of business promotion expenses monthly used by the Defendant from January 2017 to July 2018 (hereinafter “instant information”).

C. According to Article 11(1) and (2) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”), a public institution shall determine whether to disclose the instant information within 20 days from the date of receipt of the request for information disclosure. However, the Defendant did not decide whether to disclose the instant information within 20 days from the date of receipt of the request for the instant information disclosure.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Defendant’s decision not to disclose the instant information is unlawful” and filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 3 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant’s prior defense, etc. 1) made a prior defense prior to the merits to the effect that “No decision has been made on the instant information, and there is no decision on non-disclosure of the instant information. Therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the non-disclosure decision on the instant information does not exist and thus, should be dismissed as it is inappropriate because the disposition itself, which is the subject of revocation, does not exist.” On the contrary, the Plaintiff did not decide on whether to disclose the instant information within the period stipulated in the Information Disclosure Act, and thus, it is deemed that the Plaintiff made a non-disclosure decision on the instant information.

Therefore, according to Article 20 of the Information Disclosure Act and Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act, etc.