①The provisions of Article 9, Article 17, Article 24, Chapter II, Sections 3 and 4, and Article 50, paragraph (2) of the Administrative Complaint Review Act (Act No. 68 of 2014) do not apply to an appeal for review to any inaction of an administrative organ's head or administrative entity (excluding a local government organ or a local incorporated administrative agency; the same applies in the following paragraph and the following Article) in relation to a decision on disclosure, a decision on correction, a decision on ceasing to use personal information, or in relation to a request for disclosure, a request for correction, or a request for ceasing to use personal information.

②When applying the provisions in Chapter II of the Administrative Complaint Review Act to an appeal for review to any inaction of an administrative organ's head or administrative entity in relation to a decision on disclosure, a decisions on correction, a decision ceasing to use personal information, or in relation to a request for disclosure, a request for correction, or a request for ceasing to use personal information, the term "a person who has been designated pursuant to the provisions of Article 9, paragraph (1) (hereinafter referred to as a "review officer)" in Article 11, paragraph (2) of that Act is deemed to be replaced with "an administrative agency (including an administrative agency that takes over the appeal for review pursuant to the provisions in Article 14; hereinafter referred to as a "reviewing agency") to which an appeal for review has been filed pursuant to the provisions in Article 4 (including a Cabinet Order issued pursuant to Article 107, paragraph (2) of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (Act No. 57 of 2003)"); the term "review officer" in Article 13, paragraphs (1) and (2) of that Act is deemed to be replaced with the term "reviewing agency"; the phrase "has been filed or a written opinion to suggest the necessity to order a stay of execution as prescribed in Article 40 has been submitted by a review officer" in Article 25, paragraph (7) of that Act is deemed to be replaced with "has been filed"; the term "Administrative Complaint Review Board, etc." in Article 44 of that Act is deemed to be replaced with "Information Disclosure and Personal Information Protection Review Board (or a review board specified by another law if the President of the Board of Audit is the reviewing agency, the same applies in Article 50, paragraph (1), item (iv))"; in that Article, the phrase "has received a report to its consultation from the Administrative Complaint Review Board, etc. (or when a review officer's written opinion has been submitted in cases in which the consultation pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) of the preceding Article is not necessary (excluding the cases falling under item (ii) or (iii) of that paragraph), or when deliberations prescribed in item (ii) or (iii) of that paragraph have been held in the cases falling under item (ii) or (iii) of that paragraph)" is deemed to be replaced with "has received a report to its consultation from the Administrative Complaint Review Board, etc."; and the term "the review officer's written opinion or the written report from the Administrative Complaint Review Board, etc. or the Council, etc." in Article 50, paragraph (1), item (iv) of that Article is deemed to be replaced with "the Information Disclosure and Personal Information Protection Review Board".