1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 26, 2015, the Plaintiff is a prisoner who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 20 years for attempted murder, etc. from September 2, 2016 to the Gwangju Prison.

B. Around September 12, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a request for disclosure of information to disclose the frequency of using protective equipment in a court against the number of judicial inmates during the year from January 1, 2014 to September 12, 2018, with ① the applicant’s civil and administrative presiding judge, separately seeking a decision on whether to wear protective equipment, ② the implementation of the procedures for requesting the use of protective equipment, and ③ the request, respectively.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant, on September 27, 2018, disclosed the information corresponding to the following: (i) the Defendant: (ii) the information on whether to use the protective equipment in a court was carried out; (iii) the information on whether to use the protective equipment in a court was disclosed; and (iv) only the “written request for a decision to grant a license” among the “written request” requested by the Plaintiff was disclosed and the request was rejected.

(hereinafter the defendant's disposition regarding the above (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 1

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Among the information disclosed by the Plaintiff, the information on whether the Plaintiff used protective equipment in the court among the information disclosed by the Defendant is an information on whether the Plaintiff used protective equipment in accordance with the decision of the presiding judge, and thus, the Plaintiff’s request for the use of protective equipment is not an information on whether the procedures for requesting the use of protective equipment are implemented, but the request was not disclosed in the case where the Defendant was permitted, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful. As such, the Defendant already disclosed the information that the Plaintiff sought disclosure, and thus, the Defendant’s defense

B. Determination 1 on whether the Defendant requested the use of protective equipment is confidential.