2. New Zealand Co., Ltd.

2. On July 19, 2017 and September 27, 2017, the part excluding the document No. 4-4 from among the non-disclosure disposition of the information recorded in the list (attached Form 1) that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiffs on July 19, 2017 and September 27, 2017, excluding the document No. 4-4 from the document No. 1, and the part concerning the document No. 2 No. 7-9 from the document No. 2, excluding the portion described in the column No. 2, excluding the portion concerning the non-disclosure

3. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

4. The costs of the lawsuit, including the portion arising from the intervention, shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the lawsuit.

A. The Plaintiffs are companies with the purpose of issuing communications and providing news services, and Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a company with the purpose of news communications business.

B. On July 5, 2017 and August 30, 2017, the Plaintiffs requested the Defendant to disclose the information stated in the table “subject to the request for disclosure of information” below (the Plaintiffs requested disclosure of information other than the above information, but omitted information, which is not the subject matter in the instant case; hereinafter referred to as the “attached 1”). Accordingly, on July 19, 2017 and September 27, 2017, the Defendant determined that the information should not be disclosed to the Plaintiffs on the same ground as the stated in the table “disposition” below, and notified the Plaintiffs thereof (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

A person shall be appointed.

C. The Plaintiffs are seeking revocation of the Defendant’s non-disclosure of information by specifying the information recorded in the “information disclosure claim” column as the information recorded in the list (attached Form 1).

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the Act and subordinate statutes 2.

Article 9 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as "Information Disclosure Act")

(1) Information held and managed by public institutions shall be subject to disclosure to the public: Provided, That any of the following information may not be disclosed:

7. Information pertaining to the management and trade secrets of a corporation, organization or individual (hereinafter referred to as "corporation, etc.") which, if disclosed, is likely to seriously undermine legitimate interests of the corporation, etc.: Provided, That the following information shall be excluded herefrom:

(a) Information that is necessary to be disclosed in order to protect the life, body and health of persons from dangers arising from business activities;

(b) Information that is necessary to be disclosed to protect the property or livelihood of citizens from illegal or unfair business activities;

3. Whether a lawsuit concerning some information is lawful;

(a) [Attachment 1] List 1 document No. 4-4 document number 4-4;

1) The Plaintiffs seek revocation of non-disclosure of information on the instant disposition (attached Form 1) No. 4-4 of the document No. 1 of the [Attachment 1] List No. 4-4 [Attachment 1] (the documents related to the 16-17 subscription contract, which are related to the Yonhap News Agency's news service strengthening and the public role enhancement plan).

2) However, in addition to the written evidence No. 4’s overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendant, while rendering the instant disposition against “request for disclosure of information as of July 19, 2017” as of July 19, 2017, may recognize the fact that the said document was disclosed to the Plaintiffs.

3) Since there is no disposition of non-disclosure of the above information, the part seeking the revocation of the disposition of non-disclosure of the above information among the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

(b) (Attached 1) Nos. 5 and 6 of the document number No. 2 of the list No. 2

1) The Plaintiffs seek revocation of the non-disclosure of information regarding the instant disposition (attached Form 1) Nos. 5 and 6 of the document number No. 2 of the [Attachment 1] List No. 2 (the cost of each type related to the calculation of public functions costs in 2011 and evidentiary materials, and the cost of each type related to the calculation of public functions costs in 2012 and evidentiary materials).

2) However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs merely claimed disclosure of “data on the detailed details of the public function performed by the Intervenor from 2013 to 2016, as set forth in Section 2(a) of the instant information disclosure claim, and on the expenses incurred by the Intervenor in each specific public function,” and there was no lack of claim for disclosure of the detailed details of the public function of the Intervenor in 201 and 2012 and the expenses incurred therefrom.

3) Since there is no information non-disclosure disposition on the documents Nos. 2(a)(5) and 6(6) of the list No. 2, among the instant lawsuits, the part seeking the revocation of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of the above information is unlawful.

(c) Port information No. 2

1) The plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant and the intervenor will retain this part of the information is merely merely a mere trend, and the defendant does not retain this part of the information.

2) In light of the fact that the information disclosure system is a system that discloses information held and managed by a public institution in its state, it is sufficient to prove that there is a considerable probability that the person seeking the information disclosure will possess and manage the information that is sought to be disclosed by an administrative agency. However, in a case where a public institution does not hold and manage such information, there is no legal interest to seek cancellation of the information disclosure system by the Ministry, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Du7087, Apr. 25, 2003; 2002Du12854, Jan. 28, 2005).

3) The Plaintiffs asserts that, if the Government received news information services from the Intervenor, there exists particulars using news information, such as accepting the said news information in the report, etc. or using it in promoting policies, the Plaintiffs claim information disclosure on such news information.

However, even if the defendant or the government receives news information service from the intervenor and uses the news information, it is not directly related to whether or not the defendant or the government retains or manages the contents using the news information.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that there is a considerable probability that the defendant retains and manages this part of the information.

4) Since the part seeking the revocation of the instant disposition regarding the instant information among the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no legal interest, the aforementioned main defense of the Defendant and the Intervenor is reasonable.

(d) Multi-paragraph information No. 2

1) The Defendant and the Intervenor asserted that, through the budget request disclosed at the time of the instant disposition, “the part seeking revocation of the non-disclosure disposition of the information under Section 2(c) of the instant lawsuit (attached Form 1) is unlawful, since the pre-defense materials were disclosed to the public with KRW 136,00,000,000.”

2) However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs filed a claim for disclosure of “the calculation details of the pre-determination materials of the Ministry of National Defense” among the instant information disclosure claims No. 2-C, which is the content of the pre-determination materials of the Ministry of National Defense, and this is a claim for disclosure of not only the pre-determination materials for national defense but also the materials pertaining to the calculation basis. Nevertheless, since the Defendant only disclosed only the amount of the pre-determination materials for national defense, and the materials pertaining to the calculation basis were not entirely disclosed, it is reasonable

3) Therefore, the above main defense of the Defendant and the Intervenor cannot be accepted.

(e) (Attached 1) No. 10, 11 of the document number No. 2 of the list No. 2

1) The Plaintiffs seek revocation of the non-disclosure of information on the instant disposition (attached Form 1) No. 10, 11 of the document No. 2 of the list No. 2 of the instant disposition (attached Form 1) (the documents related to the total amount of public functions and profit-making, and the documents related to the total amount of public functions in 2012).

2) However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs only requested disclosure of the detailed data on the total amount of profit derived from the performance of official functions from 2013 to 2014 from 2014, among the instant claims for disclosure of information, as set forth in paragraph (d) of the No. 2 of the instant claims, and there was no need to request disclosure of the materials related to the total amount of profit accrued from the public functions in 2011 and 2012

3) Since there is no information non-disclosure disposition on the documents Nos. 10 and 11 in [Attachment 1] Nos. 2 of the List Nos. 2, the part seeking the revocation of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of the above information among the lawsuits in this case is unlawful.

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the non-disclosure of information regarding the documents No. 4-4 of the [Attachment 1] list No. 1, the document No. 2, No. 5 and 6 of the document No. 2, No. 2, No. 2, and No. 2, No. 10 and 11 is unlawful.

4. Whether the instant disposition against the remaining information is lawful

(a) [Attachment 1] Information Nos. 1 (excluding documents No. 4-4) in the list (attached Form 1), document No. 2 No. 7-9 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), document No. 2 No. 12 and 13 (hereinafter referred to as “instant information”);

1) Summary of the parties’ assertion

A) Plaintiffs’ assertion

All of the instant information does not constitute matters concerning the management and business secrets of the Intervenor.

In addition, considering the public nature of the Intervenor, it is difficult to recognize the Intervenor’s legitimate interest to refuse disclosure of the instant information in light of the following: (a) the content of the subscription agreement between the Intervenor and the Government; and (b) the details of the subscription fee calculation.

Therefore, the part of the disposition of this case concerning the non-disclosure of the information of this case is unlawful.

B) The defendant or the intervenor's assertion

The instant information constitutes various information necessary for the process of calculating subscription fees between the intervenor and the government, and thereby constitutes matters concerning the intervenor’s management and trade secrets. The instant information includes data on the intervenor’s management, the details of employee remuneration, and transactional relationship with other companies. In particular, the “official directly cost” included in the document No. 2 No. 7-9 of the list No. 2 of the document No. 7-9 is calculated based on the data on the intervenor’s private functions expenses ( personnel expenses, editing expenses, news gathering expenses, etc.). Thus, if disclosed, the intervenor’s personnel expenses, business expenses, etc. concerning the Intervenor’s private functions are revealed. (Attachment 1) The total functional profit included in the document No. 2 No. 412 and 13 of the list No. 2 of the documents No. 2 of the list excludes private functional profit from the total profit other than rental profit irrelevant to the press function.

Such information is a fraud business and constitutes the details of the Intervenor’s specific internal management information, transaction data, business expenses, and earnings. Considering these circumstances, the Intervenor’s legitimate interests that may refuse to disclose the instant information may be recognized.

Therefore, the part concerning the non-disclosure of the instant disposition regarding the instant information is lawful.

2) Determination

A) Relevant provisions and legal principles

(1) The purpose of the Information Disclosure Act is to guarantee the citizen’s right to know and secure the citizen’s participation in government affairs and transparency in government affairs by prescribing matters necessary for the citizen’s request for disclosure of information held and managed by a public institution and for the duty of disclosure of information. However, in order to protect legitimate interests by preventing the leakage of confidential information about business activities of a business chain corporation, etc., the Information Disclosure Act provides that “any information that is deemed likely to seriously undermine the legitimate interests of a corporation, etc. if disclosed as confidential business or business activities of a corporation, organization, or individual” under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act shall be subject to non-disclosure. In light of the legislative purpose of the Information Disclosure Act, “business secrets of a corporation, etc.” under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act refers to all information on business activities that are favorable to the disclosure of others, or all confidential information on business activities of a corporation that is held and managed by a public institution” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du471, Apr. 27, 2018).

(2) Article 14 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that where the information requested for disclosure is mixed with the information subject to non-disclosure provided by each subparagraph of Article 9(1) and the part that can be disclosed, and where the two parts can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of a request for disclosure, the part corresponding to the information subject to non-disclosure shall be excluded. In a case where the court examines the illegality of a disposition refusing disclosure of information, and where it is recognized that the part corresponding to the information subject to non-disclosure and the part that can be disclosed can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of a request for disclosure, the part that can be disclosed among the information whose disclosure is refused shall be specified and the part that can be disclosed among the information whose disclosure is refused shall be revoked (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du6425, Mar. 11, 2003; 2009Du2702, Apr. 23, 2009).

(B) [Attachment 1] List 1 Information (other than documents No. 4-4)

(1) According to the result of this court’s non-disclosure inspection and examination, this part of the information contains the following contents:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

(2) First, we examine the document in question other than the document No. 4-8 of the document number.

Of the above documents, the following documents include the detailed contents of the news information package subscription contract between the intervenor and the government, the basis and method of calculating the contract amount (including the amount of preservation of the public function net cost, news information fee, and materials before the National Defense Day), the contents of the intervenor's service and the administrative agency receiving the service. As such, the document constitutes "the intervenor's business secrets and trade secrets" as the intervenor's information on business activities that are favorable to the other party's disclosure.

However, in addition to the legislative intent of the Information Disclosure Act prior to the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that there is a legitimate interest of an intervenor who may refuse to disclose the above documents.

(1) According to Article 10 of the News Agency Act, an intervenor is a corporation established pursuant to the aforementioned Act to protect information sovereignty as a national key news agency, to resolve the digital divide and to meet citizens' right to know; to supply news, data, pictures, etc. to foreign public institutions, media, companies, organizations, etc.; to supply news, data, pictures, etc. in English or other important foreign languages prescribed by Presidential Decree; to universities, colleges, public libraries, non-profit organizations, etc.; to provide foreign news, data, pictures, etc.; to promote international friendship, cultural exchange, and foreign diplomatic protection; and to provide information to the Government during the period of time; to prevent disasters and minimize damage to new news agencies. According to the provisions of Article 19 of the former Act and Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, an intervenor as part of the performance of the above duties, the intervenor is entitled to enter into a contract with the Government Information Agency for the purposes of providing information to the Government; to enter into a contract with the Government Information Agency and the Government Information Reading; and to enter into a contract with the Government Information Rate and Defic Rules, etc.

On the other hand, since the government subscription fees paid to intervenors under the news information package subscription contract between the intervenor and the government are financed by citizens' taxes, it is highly necessary to guarantee transparency and adequacy of the contents of the subscription contract, the grounds and methods for the calculation of the government subscription fees, the contents of the services provided by the intervenor, and the administrative agencies, etc. provided by the intervenor, or to check or monitor them.

In light of these circumstances, there is no need to protect the rights of the Intervenor.

(3) As to the document No. 4-8, the document number will be examined as follows:

Among the contents stated in the document No. 48 of the document number, the type of business, the date of establishment, capital, equity ratio, the intervenor's business performance, the shareholder, capital, etc. of the intervenor's subsidiary company is publicly announced. Thus, it cannot be viewed as business secrets of the intervenor or the intervenor'

Of the contents stated in the document No. 4-8, the organization of the intervenor, the number of employees, and the number of employees of the intervenor's subsidiaries, among the contents stated in the document No. 4-8, may be deemed as constituting management and business secrets of the intervenor or the intervenor's subsidiaries. However, it is merely a general content on the number of employees and organizations of the intervenor or the intervenor's subsidiaries. Thus, it is difficult to

(4) Therefore, the part regarding the non-disclosure of the instant disposition regarding the information No. 1 (excluding the document No. 4-4) in the instant disposition is unlawful.

C) [Attachment 1] Documents No. 2 No. 7-9 of the Category 2 of the List

(1) In addition to the written evidence Nos. 4 and 4, B, and 1, the Intervenor’s sales revenue in 2016 is KRW 178,161,908,468, and the government subscription fee in 2016 is KRW 33,90,00,000. In addition, according to the result of this court’s non-disclosure inspection and examination, the document number No. 2 of the list No. 2 of the list No. 7-9 is written as follows.

(A) document No. 7

① The title "I, the improvement direction in 2014," includes a brief change in the method of calculating government subscription fees and the amount of government subscription fees in 2014 following such change.

② Under the title "I. III. Public function of the Yonhap News", a research team requested to provide research services on the modification of the government subscription fee calculation method as above is recorded in the intervenor's public function.

③ Under the title IV. â……………………………………………â……… â â â â â. The details of calculation of the public net expense, â…………………………â………………………………â……………âââ……………âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ

(1) In the 8th page, [4] Detailed Calculation Contents], a list was presented, which arranged the total amount of direct costs by public function in 2011 and 2012. From that perspective, the detailed statement (including the specific amount of personnel expenses, news gathering expenses, editing expenses, etc.) that calculated the total amount of direct costs by public function, and the number of persons of each department carrying out the detailed statement (from 8 pages to 12 pages, 'the expansion of overseas news gathering networks').

⑤ Under title 2, 2011, 2012, 2012, the table was presented to adjust the total amount of profit by classifying the total profit by communication profit, video information profit, publishing profit, service profit, etc. The following is the method of calculating the items of total related profit, the method of calculating private profit, the total amount of profit in 2011, and the total amount of private profit in 2012 (not the amount added by calculating the intervenor's private profit, but the estimated value by the participant's profit and loss statement, the sales cost in the communication division, and the cost of public profit in the statement of profit and loss).

6) In 14 pages, the calculation method is indicated under the title "(3) public functions allocation of common expenses", and the specific amount such as the total amount of the sales center expenses in 2011, the total amount of the sales center expenses in 2012, the amount of the sales center expenses in the publication section irrelevant to public functions, the advertisement expenses of the press company in the customer press, the direct sales center expenses in the public functions, etc. are arranged in the table, and the intervenor's relevant duties included in each of the above items are included (14 pages).

7) From 11 to 17 pages 11, 2011, 2011, 2012, the total amount of net cost of public functions, direct cost of public functions, common cost allocation, etc., the government subscription fee calculation in 2011, 2012, and 2012, taking into account the inflation rate into account the total amount of net cost of public functions in 2014, the news subscription fee calculation details (calculated method), calculation details of total cost of national defense daily materials, etc.

(8) From 19 to 22 pages include the statement of profits and losses of participants, the organization of intervenors, and the adjustment of expenses related to direct performance of public services (the details of the expenses presented by the intervenors adjusted by the Research Team), etc. in 201, and 2012.

(B) document number 8 No. 8

① Under the title of "Calculation of Actual Expenses for Public Functions in 2013 to 2014, an application for the direct performance of public functions in 2013 and 2014, for the filing of the application for the performance of public functions and private telecommunications functions, public and private functions, net expenses directly for public functions, net expenses for public functions, common net expenses, net expenses for public functions, and net expenses for public functions in 2016 to 2017 are presented, and the major contents of the table are as follows: customer companies' advertisement expenses, publicity agency revenues, public relations agency fees, public relations agency expenses, other sales expenses, and other expenses for public functions and private functions, and each revenue and calculation method is briefly stated in the main contents of the table.

② From 2011 to 2014, the title "calculated on Calculation of Amount of Compensation for Amount of Public Net Costs for Public Functions in 2016 to 2017, the agreement process on the amount of calculation between the defendant and the intervenor is organized in the table, together with the total cost of public functions, total profit, total cost of communications sales, public function and private function sales cost, public function and private function sales cost, public function and private function, direct cost of public function, direct cost of public function, allocation of common cost, and total amount of net cost of public function.

③ Under the title of ‘the table of total expenses directly for public functions', ‘the classification of total expenses by direct cost for public functions', ‘the total expenses by public functions' in 2013 and ‘the expenses by public functions in 2014 by classifying the public costs by labor costs, operating expenses (including non-business expenses) etc., and the list in which the specific amount has been adjusted is written, and the number of persons in charge of each public function is written.

④ Under the title of "current Status of Personnel Expenses in the Public Sector", the detailed amount of personnel expenses, such as salary and retirement benefits, by departments in charge of public functions, etc. in 2013 and 2014, are presented wres, and the detailed details of operating expenses (such as office management expenses, insurance premium, rental expenses, coverage expenses, communication expenses, editing expenses, etc.) and amount by each public function are adjusted.

(5) The intervenor's income statement for the year 2013 and the year 2014 shall be attached thereafter.

6. Under the title of "ratio of Official Articles", the number of official articles written by each department of the Intervenor in 2013 and 2014 is presented.

③ Under the title of ‘the prime daily newspaper sales cost rate from 2007 to 2014', the title of ‘the prime daily newspaper sales cost rate' includes the sales amount and the number of newspaper sales cost from 2007 to 2014.

8. The title "advertising and publicity expenses for a customer company" is as follows: the details of the execution of the advertising and publicity expenses by customer company in 2013 and 2014, and the specific amount of the advertising and publicity expenses are arranged in table.

(C) document No. 9 (documents No. 9-1, 9-2) and the same document

① In detail, the title â………………………………………………â………âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ

② The title II, 16-17, 2013, 2014, i.e., calculation of the subscription fee for the Yonhap News: (i) the total amount of expenses directly incurred by public functions in the year 2013 and 2014, is presented, and (ii) the following details are written (including the specific amount of personnel expenses, coverage expenses, editing expenses, etc.) the total amount of expenses directly incurred by public functions in the year 2013 and 2014.

③ Under the title of ‘total Income of Three Public Functions', a statement was presented to adjust the total amount of the profit in 2013 and 2014 by dividing it into communication profit, video information profit, publishing profit, service profit, etc. The following is presented: the method of calculating the items of the total related profit, the method of calculating private profit, the method of calculating private profit, and the total amount of private profit in 2013 and 2014 (not including the value added by calculating the intervenor’s private profit, but the value estimated by adding it to the cost of communication on the profit and loss statement, the cost of public profit and loss statement, and the cost of public profit and loss)."13 and 2014, under the title of ‘the 13th public profit and loss statement', a statement is presented to adjust the profit and loss of public function (the value subtracting the private profit presumed as above from the total related profit) in 2013 and 2014.

(4) The title "shared public functions of common expenses" indicates the method of calculating the common expenses. Next, the detailed amount of sales expenses and management expenses in 2013, the total amount of sales expenses and management expenses in 2014, the sales expenses and management expenses in the portion of publication irrelevant to public functions, the advertisement expenses for the media companies, the advertisement expenses for the public functions, and the direct sales expenses and management expenses, etc. are arranged in the table, and the intervenor's relevant duties included in the above items

5] Under the title "amount of preservation of the amount of the public net cost in 2016-2017," a list is presented that the total amount of the public net cost in 2013, the public net cost in 2014, the direct net cost in the public function, the allocation of common cost in the public function, etc.

6. Under the title of "consultations on the Amount of net expenses in performing the functions of the Yonhap News", the news information between the intervenor and the defendant in 2016 and the process of consultation on the Government subscription fees under the package subscription contract shall be recorded.

7) The document stating "amount to compensate for the public net operating expenses" in 16-17 and "amount to compensate for the public net operating expenses" in 2013 and 2nd 16-17, the document stating the total expenses directly for the public functions in 2013 and 2014, the total related revenue, the sales cost of the public and private functions, the sales cost of the public functions and private functions, the amount of direct public functions, the amount of common expenses, the amount of net operating expenses, the amount of public net operating expenses, the total amount to compensate for the public net operating expenses in 2016-2017, and the major contents in the list include specific amounts such as customer advertisement expenses, advertising expenses, revenue by proxy, publicity agency fees, public service sales cost and other sales cost, and non-public business expenses.

③ The document called “expenses related to the Korean national events” includes the specific amount of various outing equipment, entertainment expenses, etc. related to the events in 2013 and 2014.

① The document stating the "expenses related to the operation expenses of departments" and the "expenses related to the Chinese-national events" is written in 2013 and the specific amount of the operation expenses of public departments by function in 2014 (editorial expenses, welfare expenses, etc.).

10. Also, the document "providing a method of calculating the public net cost (or research service for improving the original contract)" is explained, and the total amount of the public net cost of public functions in 2011 is adjusted in terms of "the drawing of the public net cost of public functions in 2011".

(2) According to the above facts of recognition, among the documents No. 7 of document number 201, the Intervenor’s income statement and document number No. 2012, among the documents No. 8 of document number 201, the Intervenor’s income statement in 2013, the Intervenor’s income statement in 2014, and the Defendant’s income statement in 2007-2014, “the rate of the daily newspaper sales cost for the major daily newspapers in 2014” are information disclosed. Thus, the Intervenor’

However, the remainder of the document Nos. 7 to 9, except that portion, contains the amount of government subscription fees and the calculation method thereof, and the specific amount of sales cost, sales cost, and sales cost related to the intervenor's public and private functions. Thus, the part constitutes "in the intervenor's management and business secrets" as information on the intervenor's business activities that are favorable to the other party's disclosure.

(3) In addition, considering the following circumstances revealed through the above fact of recognition, the part in the document No. 7-9 [Attachment 2] in the document No. 7-9 [Attachment 2] list can be recognized as legitimate interest to refuse the disclosure. Thus, the part in the document No. 2 of the [Attachment 1] No. 7-9 of the document No. 2 [Attachment 2] in the document No. 7-9 of the list is legitimate.

① As seen earlier, even though the Intervenor has a considerable public nature with regard to the conclusion and performance of subscription contracts with the Government as a national news agency, the Intervenor is also a corporation pursuing profits from its business, such as news communications business with respect to other private companies, other than the Government. In other words, the Intervenor also performs public functions in performing public functions under the News Communications Act, such as public duties under the subscription contract with the Government, etc., and the amount of sales from such private functions constitutes approximately 81% [=(1-3,900,000 - 178,161,908,468) x 100] of the total sales revenue of the Intervenor. In the case of documents No. 7 of document number, the portion of the Intervenor’s specific sales revenue related to the Intervenor’s private functions as of 2011 falls under the scope of the Intervenor’s specific sales revenue unrelated to the Intervenor’s private functions (including the amount of advertising and publicity expenses) and the specific amount of the Intervenor’s sales revenue related to each other’s private functions.

(3) In addition, the entry in the remaining [Attachment 2] list contains detailed details to calculate the total amount of expenses directly incurred by public functions (including the specific amount of personnel expenses, expenses for coverage, editing expenses, etc.), the number of persons of each department that performs such duties, expenses for public functions classified by personnel expenses, business expenses (including non-business expenses), etc. for all kinds of sales cost, the number of persons responsible for each public function, expenses for the payment of departments in charge of public functions, expenses for retirement benefits, etc., the detailed amount of personnel expenses, such as retirement benefits, etc., the operating expenses for each public function (including office management expenses, insurance premium, rent, news gathering expenses, communications expenses, editing expenses, etc.), the detailed amount and amount of expenses for each public function, the number of public articles of each participant department, and the amount of various ex-post equipment and entertainment expenses, etc.

Detailed details, such as the total amount of direct expenses by public function, are ultimately comprised of personnel expenses and operating expenses (e.g., re-performance, editing expenses). In light of the function or content of communications agency’s duties, the information on personnel expenses and personnel expenses disbursed by the intervenor while performing public functions and performing private functions, etc. such as personnel expenses and personnel expenses disbursed by the intervenor while performing public functions is considered the same structure. As such, information on personnel expenses and number of persons, etc. of public functions constitutes information by which the intervenor’s internal management information or cost information related to the intervenor’s business activities in relation to his/her private functions can be inferred. Furthermore, considering that the intervenor performs both public functions and private functions, the details and specific amount of each department, item, and specific amount of business expenses related to private functions at the same time, are closely related to each department, item, and specific amount of business expenses related to private functions. If disclosed by item, detailed amount of business expenses related to the above public functions, it is likely that the intervenor’s business know-how or know-how is likely to occur with private functions.

If such part is disclosed, personnel expenses, business expenses, structure, composition ratio, etc. of the Intervenor’s private functions are revealed, and through this, the Intervenor’s business plan or accounting information can be peeped. Thus, compared to cases where such information is not disclosed, the Intervenor is bound to be in an unfavorable position in competition, and accordingly, he/she can secure a favorable position in competition news agencies such as the Plaintiffs.

④ As can be seen, specific information pertaining to private functions irrelevant to the intervenor’s public functions or, even if it is related to the intervenor’s public functions, does not constitute a general and general information that does not affect the intervenor’s business or management. Moreover, even when considering the public nature of the Intervenor’s public nature regarding the conclusion, performance, etc. of subscription contracts with the government, transparency and adequacy should not be guaranteed to the Intervenor’s information that can grasp the intervenor’s business plan or accounting information, etc., nor need to check or monitor such information.

(4) However, considering the following circumstances revealed through the above fact of recognition, the part of the document No. 7-9 (attached Form 2) excluding the part in the document No. 7-9 (attached Form 2) excluding the part in the list No. 2 excluding the part in the document No. 2-9 (attached Form 1) excluding the part in the document No. 2-1 (attached Form 2) excluding the part in the document No. 7-9 (attached Form 2) excluding the part in the list No. 2-

① As seen earlier, an intervenor has considerable public nature in concluding and implementing subscription contracts with the Government as a news agency for a national period.

(2) This part of the information is the content of the method of calculating the Government subscription fee, the amount of the Government subscription fee in 2014, the amount subsequent thereto, the public function of the intervenor presented by the research team requested to modify the Government subscription fee calculation method, the total amount of direct expenses for public functions, communication revenue, video income, publication revenue, service revenue, etc., the total amount of public functions, the total amount of public net expenses, the total amount of public functions, the total amount of public net expenses, the total amount of common functions, the total amount of public net expenses, the total amount of public functions, the total amount of common costs public functions among the defendant and the intervenor, the total amount of the government subscription fee calculation method, news information user fee, and the total cost of national defense information. This part of the information contains the contents of the government subscription subscription fee calculation method, the amount of the Government subscription subscription in 2014, the amount of the research team requested to modify the Government subscription subscription fee calculation method, the public function of the intervenor presented by the research team, the public function of the intervenor and the intervenor's participation in the participation's participation's participation in information calculation of fraud.

In this part of the information, the total amount of direct costs of public functions, which is classified into communication profits, video information profits, publishing profits, service profits, etc., total amount of public functions revenue, total amount of net cost of public functions, total amount of direct net cost of public functions, total amount of direct cost of public functions, and total amount of public functions allocation of common expenses, unlike the information mentioned above (attached Form 2), are only the detailed cost composition details or amount, and it is difficult to regard it as specific information that can grasp the details of the intervenor's private functions. In addition, in the government subscription form calculation method, the "private function profit" is only the estimated value calculated by multiplying the total amount of private functions by the "cost ratio (private cost ratio)" of the total amount of private functions revenue of the intervenor, not the value calculated by adding the actual private functions profit of the intervenor. The total amount of private functions revenue used for such calculation is also the information that is the same as the total amount of sales of private enterprises publicly notified.

On the other hand, since government subscription fees paid to intervenors under the subscription contract between the intervenor and the government are financed by citizens' taxes, transparency and adequacy in terms of the contents of the subscription contract, the basis and method of calculating subscription fees, and the total amount of all kinds of profits and expenses used in calculating subscription fees is highly necessary to guarantee transparency and adequacy, or to check or monitor it is highly necessary to accept it as the intervenor.

In light of these circumstances, the need to protect the rights of the Intervenor with respect to this part of the information cannot be deemed to have been high.

(5) Ultimately, the part of the instant disposition (attached Form 1) in the document No. 7-9 of the document No. 2 of the list No. 2 of the list (attached Form 2) is unlawful only for the part of the nonpublic disposition other than the indicated part, and the part excluded is lawful.

(d) [Attachment 1] Documents No. 12, 13, No. 2 of the Schedule No. 2

(1) According to the result of this court’s non-disclosure inspection and examination, the document No. 2 of the [Attachment 1] List No. 12-13 of the document No. 2 of the list No. 12-13 is organized in the table by the specific details and amount of the promotional agency fee received by each customer company after the intervenor performed the duties of vicariously promoting customer companies in 2013 and 2014

(2) The above information contains details of the Intervenor’s advertising agency business customer and individual transaction amount.

Therefore, the contents of the intervenor's business and trade secrets are classified as "business and trade secrets" of the intervenor.

In addition, the above information is irrelevant to the public function as detailed details of sales related to the intervenor's private functions. If it is disclosed, the intervenor's public relations agency business, transaction amount by customer, specific accounting information by customer, etc. are revealed, and where such information is not disclosed, the intervenor is placed in an unfavorable position in competition, and competition news agencies, including the plaintiffs, etc. can secure favorable status corresponding thereto. Accordingly, legitimate interests that may refuse disclosure can be acknowledged.

(3) Therefore, the part regarding the non-disclosure of the documents No. 2 No. 12 and 13 in the disposition of this case (attached Form 1) is lawful.

B. Paragraphs (c), (e) information, and (3) information of the sequence 2

1) Paragraph (c) information No. 2

A) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

Although the plaintiffs filed a claim for the disclosure of "the calculation of the pre-defense material in Ministry of National Defense" in Section 2(c) of the Information Disclosure Claim, the defendant only disclosed the budget request containing only "the pre-defense material amount" and did not disclose the data on the basis of calculation. Among the dispositions in this case, the non-disclosure of this part of the disposition in this case is unlawful as it did not present the grounds for non-disclosure.

B) Determination

(1) Articles 1, 3, and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act provide that all citizens shall disclose information held and managed by a public institution in principle in order to guarantee citizens' right to know and secure citizens' participation in state affairs and transparency in state administration. Thus, a public institution requested to disclose information held and managed by a public institution shall disclose such information unless it falls under the grounds for non-disclosure provided by each subparagraph of Article 7(1) of the Information Disclosure Act. Even if refusing to disclose the information, it shall be verified and verified that certain parts of the information are in conflict with the legal interests or fundamental rights and that it constitutes a ground for non-disclosure provided by Article 7(1) Item (e) of the Act, and it is not allowed to reject the air for the sake of a general reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du3426, Sept. 21, 199; 2001Du827, Dec. 11, 2003).

(2) In addition to the statement in Gap evidence No. 4, the purport of the argument is as follows: ① the government subscription fee under the subscription contract between the Government and the Intervenor is calculated by adding the amount of preservation of public net operating expenses, news information usage fees, and all materials for national defense information; ② The defendant can recognize the fact that the Ministry of Strategy and Finance made a budget request for the year 2016 concerning the government subscription fee, etc. to the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, and set the whole materials for national defense as KRW 136 million.

In addition to the facts of the above recognition that the intervenor explains the basis for calculation that all the materials of the National Defense Day were set at KRW 136 million in this case, it can be recognized that the defendant retains and manages the above materials concerning the basis for calculation of all the materials of the National Defense Day.

Although the defendant retains and manages the data on the basis of calculation as well as the amount of the pre-paid materials for national defense day, the defendant did not disclose the part on the "data on the basis of calculation (which is the basis of calculation)" that the plaintiffs requested the disclosure without presenting any particular reasons, so that the information was substantially confidential.

(3) Therefore, the part of the instant disposition pertaining to the non-disclosure of information under Section 2(c) is unlawful as it did not indicate the grounds for non-disclosure.

2) Ethical information No. 2

A) Plaintiffs’ assertion

Although the plaintiffs filed a claim for disclosure of "the intervenor's settlement of accounts and the result of the analysis thereof, which served as the basis for calculating the amount to compensate for the amount of net expenses incurred in performing their functions" in the No. 2 E. of the instant claim for the disclosure of information, the defendant did not disclose the information on the ground that referring to the electronic disclosure system. Reference to the electronic disclosure system is not a legitimate ground for non-disclosure of the disposition. Thus, the part of the instant

B) Determination

(1) Since the citizen's right to information disclosure is legally protected specific rights, the claimant who filed a request for information disclosure with respect to a public institution, but received a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information, has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information through administrative litigation. The claimant's right to information subject to a request for disclosure has already been disclosed to others and widely known or can easily be known through Internet search, etc. by being disclosed through the Internet, etc. cannot be justified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du8733, Jul. 13, 2007; 2005Du15694, Nov. 27, 2008).

(2) In full view of the description of the evidence No. 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the public net cost used in calculating the government subscription fee under the subscription agreement between the Government and the Intervenor refers to the amount calculated by subtracting the total profit derived from the performance of the public function from the total cost invested in the public function performed by the Intervenor, and the Defendant can recognize the fact that the public function net cost is calculated through the analysis of the materials on the settlement of the Intervenor.

According to the above facts, it can be recognized that the defendant retains and manages the intervenor's account settlement data and the result of the analysis thereof.

Although the Defendant retained and managed the above information, the instant disposition was taken to disclose the information solely on the ground of referring to referring to the Electronic Publication System, and the disposition of non-disclosure of the information No. 2 in the instant disposition cannot be justified.

(3) The Disposition No. 2 of the instant case’s instant disposition was unlawful for non-disclosure of the information under the Eth (E).

3) Information Nos. 3

A) Summary of the parties’ assertion

(1) Plaintiffs’ assertion

The Plaintiffs specified the subject of the request for information disclosure in the document No. 14-17 No. 3 of the list No. 1 of the instant lawsuit No. 3 [Attachment 1]. Accordingly, the subject of the request for information disclosure is subject to

"The portion of non-disclosure disposition for the information No. 3 in the disposition of this case" that has not been specified as the ground for disposition cannot be recognized as the ground for the disposition, and thus illegal.

(2) The defendant or the intervenor

Since the information Nos. 3 includes the current status and specific contract amount of the contracting party entered into by the intervenor, it is likely to prejudice the legitimate interests of the intervenor if disclosed. Therefore, the "the part concerning the non-disclosure of the information Nos. 3 in the instant disposition is legitimate."

B) Determination

(1) In a case seeking revocation of a non-disclosure of information, if there are parts that can not be deemed to have been specified to the extent that the contents and scope of information can be determined from the perspective of the general public (hereinafter referred to as “unspecified parts”), among the information requested by the Plaintiffs, the court which examines the information should set the content and scope of the disclosure request information by allowing the Defendant to submit the information on the disclosure request that the Plaintiffs hold and manage pursuant to Article 20(2) of the Information Disclosure Act, and allowing the Defendant to peruse and examine it in a non-disclosure manner (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du2555, Jun. 1, 2007).

The Plaintiffs changed the subject matter of disclosure request in writing No. 14-17 of the list document No. 14-17 in the process of the instant lawsuit, and accordingly, specified the content and scope of the information subject to disclosure request.

Therefore, it is not recognized that there are grounds for the disposition regarding the non-disclosure of the information in paragraph (3) of the instant disposition.

(2) In addition, the Defendant and the Intervenor asserted that the information Nos. 3 (3) constituted a non-disclosure ground under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act only when it reaches the instant case. However, the grounds for disposition on the above part are not included in the grounds for non-disclosure, and it cannot be said that the social factual relations, which form the basis of the disposition, are identical in the basic point of view. Thus, the addition

(3) Ultimately, the part of the instant disposition regarding the information No. 3 in the instant disposition is unlawful.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, among the dispositions of this case (attached Form 1), the part excluding the document No. 4-4 in the document No. 1 in the list No. 1, and the part not disclosed in the document No. 2 No. 7-9 in the document No. 2 [Attachment 2] in the list No. 7-9, excluding the part indicated, the remaining part, excluding the part concerning the No. 2-C, paragraph (e), and paragraph (3) are illegal, and the remaining part is legitimate

5. Conclusion

In the lawsuit of this case, the part of the document No. 4-4 of the document No. 1 of the list No. 2, the document No. 5 and 6 of the document No. 2, the document No. 2-b, the No. 2-D No. 2, and the document No. 10 and 11 of the document is dismissed, and the remaining plaintiffs' claims are reasonable within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed, and they are so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Hong-man

Therefore, it is corrected ex officio.