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 May 25, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request for disclosure of information with the Defendant on the register of shareholders from February 1, 1995 to 1999 of B (the trade name at the time of incorporation is “C” and “C” as of February 23, 2006, and was changed to the trade name as of December 22, 2008; hereinafter “instant company, regardless of whether before or after the mutual change was made).

B. On May 31, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “the shareholder registry is not subject to the submission by the tax authority, and there is no subject to disclosure.” The shareholder status of the instant company may be disclosed to the public other than the status of one’s own shares pursuant to Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 9 of the Official Information Disclosure Act. However, the Plaintiff did not own shares for the period from 1995 to 1996 on the shareholder status of the said company, which is identified by the National Tax Service’s computer network, and the Plaintiff owned for 12,000 shares (15%) from 1997 to 199.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection against the Defendant on June 22, 2017, but the Defendant dismissed it on July 3, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. In light of the fact that among the lawsuit in this case, the information disclosure system in the part of the claim for revocation of the non-disclosure decision is a system to disclose information held and managed by public institutions, it is sufficient to prove that the person seeking the information has a considerable probability to retain and manage the information. However, where the public institutions do not retain and manage the information, there is no legal interest to seek revocation of the disposition rejecting the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du9459, Jan. 13, 2006). ex officio, health class, the Defendant’s company from 1995 to 199.