1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 5, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose each information listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “instant information”).

B. On December 1, 2016, the Defendant, among the instant information, made an disclosure to the Plaintiff of the “public notice of the opening of the meeting, the public notice of the result of the meeting, the list of the members present, and the expenditure of the meeting of the members present (excluding personal information),” and issued a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information to the effect that the third party related to the instant information requests non-disclosure (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Defendant of this safety defense delegated authority to the Director of the National Agricultural Products Quality Management Service on the operation of the geographical indication subcommittee, such as holding of the geographical indication subcommittee, deliberation, and notification of the results thereof, and accordingly, the National Agricultural Products Quality Management Service performs the duties

Therefore, the instant case is unlawful, since the instant information is owned and managed by the National Agricultural Products Quality Management Service and the Defendant does not possess and manage it.

B. Attached Form 3 of the relevant laws and regulations are as follows.

C. Since the information disclosure system is a system that discloses information held and managed by a public institution, it should prove that there is a considerable probability that an applicant for information disclosure will possess and manage the information that is sought for disclosure, and where a public institution fails to hold and manage such information, there is no legal interest to seek revocation of a disposition rejecting information disclosure, barring special circumstances

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Du9459 Decided January 13, 2006). Each of the descriptions in Evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and Evidence Nos. 1, 2003 regarding the instant case, which are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the following circumstances, namely, the instant information for which the Plaintiff requested disclosure to the Defendant.