1. All of the plaintiff's lawsuits shall be dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On December 8, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendants for the disclosure of information in accordance with the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) as stated in the separate sheet.

(hereinafter “Request for Information Disclosure”). On April 2, 2018, the Defendant Company notified the Plaintiff on April 3, 2018 that “No pertinent information exists as of the filing date of the request for Information Disclosure,” respectively, Defendant D Co., Ltd. cannot comply with the request for Information Disclosure on the ground that “the party does not fall under the public institution which is an institution subject to the claim under the Information Disclosure Act, and does not possess the information corresponding to the claim” on April 4, 2018.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, the whole purport of the pleadings, and a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission under Article 4 subparagraph 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act, which is a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission under Article 4 subparagraph 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act, shall be permitted in a case where an administrative agency does not take a certain measure against a party's application despite the legal obligation to take a certain measure within a reasonable period of time against the party's application and the administrative agency's disposition against the party's application is nonexistent. Thus, in a case where an administrative agency issued a rejection disposition against the party's application, even if there are errors or defects, it may not file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission under the premise that there is

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8753 delivered on April 28, 1992, etc.). In light of the fact that the Defendants notified each of the refusal of the request for the disclosure of information of this case, the Defendants’ omission in the request for the disclosure of information of this case is no longer effective.