1. The Defendant’s refusal to disclose information to the Plaintiff on September 8, 2015.

1. Details of disposition;

A. On August 29, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the disclosure of information as to the information Nos. 1 and 2 of the attached list (hereinafter “instant information”).

B. On September 8, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting a request for disclosure of information on the ground that the information constitutes non-disclosure information pursuant to Article 1(1)4 and 7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The plaintiff raised an objection against the defendant, but the defendant dismissed the objection on September 22, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 11, Gap's evidence 12, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute non-disclosure information under Article 9(1)4 and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act, and thus, the instant disposition contrary thereto is unlawful.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The instant information contains 72 lots of land in the city conference zone and 160 lots of real estate (land, its lot number, location, etc. to be incorporated into the public works project) which were scheduled to be incorporated into the Saturdays, and if disclosed, it is likely to infringe on another person’s property rights if disclosed, and documents exchanged with the public agencies or the competent authorities at the project plan stage, which are the legal representative, in order to obtain the public notice of the above project approval under the Public Works Act in the course of the reclamation work of the Cheongan District and the Sinan District, and is not the internal approval document prepared by the head of the Seoan Project Association, a legal representative, in order to obtain the approval of the Defendant’s representative, and thus constitutes a non-disclosure information pursuant to Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act. 2) The Plaintiff received the Defendant’s deposit (200 million won) pursuant to the first instance judgment related to the lawsuit for