1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant to disclose each information listed in the separate sheet, which is a person working as a Class 6 correctional officer in the net prison.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant, around September 11, 2018, disclosed the information listed in the separate sheet No. 4 to the Plaintiff, and notified that each information listed in the separate sheet No. 2, 3, and 5 does not exist. With respect to the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1, Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) of the public institution’s Information Disclosure Act (where the information pertaining to personnel management is disclosed, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure would seriously interfere with the fair performance of duties). As to the information listed in the separate sheet No. 6, Article 9(1)5 and 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act (including personal information, such as the name included in the relevant information, which is likely to infringe on the confidentiality or freedom of privacy if disclosed) are not disclosed.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s information listed in the attached list No. 1 does not fall under “information that may substantially interfere with the fair performance of duties if disclosed,” as a list of performance-based payment holders of performance-based rates paid during the above period, as the second half of 2017 and the first half of 2018 and the second half of 2018, and the information listed in the attached list No. 6 does not fall under “information that is deemed likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of privacy if disclosed.” Thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case should be revoked unlawful.

(b) relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;