2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

4. The disposition of disclosing information on the information stated in the annex 2 shall be suspended until the appellate court renders a judgment on such information.

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing hub beeuting oil in Gangseo-gu Busan and various beeuting products, and Nonparty B is the representative of the labor union in the Plaintiff’s industrial beeuting sector (IM).

B. On May 29, 2016, the above B filed a request with the Defendant for disclosure of information on all documents related to the petition case (i) the reporter’s statement (including a delegation letter), ② the details of payment of overtime work allowances, (ii) the labor representative and the details of written agreement with the labor inspector in charge). ③ On June 17, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted a written opinion demanding the Defendant to disclose personal information as it is likely to infringe on the Plaintiff’s trade secret or infringe on the privacy or freedom due to personal information. On August 12, 2016, the Defendant stated the date and time of disclosure on August 17, 2016 in the separate list 1 through 16 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant information”), “public disclosure of personal information” and “public disclosure of personal information” as well as “the first provision on personal performance-based bonus payment” and “the first provision on personal information” and “the first provision on piece Rate 1 through 16 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant information”).

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1, 3 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Among the grounds for non-disclosure under the proviso of Article 9(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Information Disclosure Act"), the information provided as confidential or non-disclosure matters pursuant to other Acts (Articles 102 and 103 of the Labor Standards Act), the information pertaining to the investigation of a crime, which, if disclosed, has considerable grounds for significantly obstructing the fair performance of the defendant's duties; the information pertaining to personnel management, which, if disclosed, has reasonable grounds for remarkably obstructing the fair performance of the defendant's duties; the information which, if disclosed, is deemed likely to seriously undermine the privacy or freedom if disclosed; the information pertaining to an individual (Article 102 and Article 103 of the Labor Standards Act); and the information which, if disclosed, is deemed likely to seriously undermine the legitimate interests of the corporation, etc. (Article 7).

B. Relevant statutes

Article 9 (Information Subject to Non-Disclosure)

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

1. Information prescribed as confidential or confidential in accordance with other Acts or orders delegated by other Acts (limited to the rules of the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court Regulations, the Regulations of the Central Election Management Commission, and municipal ordinances and ordinances);

3. Information which, if disclosed, is likely to seriously obstruct the protection of people's lives, bodies, and property;

4. Information pertaining to a trial in progress, the prevention and investigation of crimes, the institution and maintenance of a public prosecution, the execution and correction of a sentence, and security disposition, which, if disclosed, has considerable grounds for significantly obstructing the performance of duties or infringing on the right of a criminal defendant to receive a fair trial;

5. Information pertaining to regulation of audit, supervision, inspection, examination, restriction, tender contract technology development, personnel management, decision-making processes or internal-review processes, etc., which, if disclosed, has considerable grounds for remarkably obstructing the fair performance of duties or research and development: Provided, That where information is not disclosed due to decision-making processes or internal-review processes, the applicant under Article 10 shall be notified of such fact upon completion of decision-making processes and internal-review processes;

6. Personal information, such as names and resident registration numbers included in the relevant information, which, if disclosed, is deemed likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals: Provided, That the following personal information shall be excluded herefrom:

(a) Information that can be perused, as prescribed by statutes;

(b) Information prepared or acquired by a public institution for the purpose of publication, which does not unfairly infringe on the privacy or freedom of private life;

(d) Name and position of public officials who perform the duties;

(e) The name and occupation7. Information concerning business secrets of corporations, organizations or individuals (hereinafter referred to as "corporation, etc.") that the State or a local government entrusts or commissions part of its duties to the public for the public interest, and which, if disclosed, is deemed likely to seriously undermine the legitimate interests of the corporation, etc.: Provided, That the following information shall be excluded herefrom:

(a) Information that needs to be disclosed to protect human life, body, or health from dangers arising from business activities;

(b) information necessary to be disclosed to protect the property or livelihood of people from illegal or unjust business activities;

8. It shall be information that, if disclosed, is likely to give a specific person profits or disadvantages due to real estate speculation, hoarding and hoarding, etc.

1) Criteria for determining information disclosure

A) In light of the 'right to know', i.e., the right to collect and process information, which has both the nature of the right to freedom and the nature of the right to claim, and Article 21 of the Constitution is the right directly guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, and the Information Disclosure Act enacted for the specific realization thereof is also a general rule on disclosure of information held and managed by public institutions (Article 3) and the exceptional grounds are restricted (Article 9), public institutions in receipt of a request for disclosure of information held and managed by the public must disclose information unless it falls under the grounds for non-disclosure provided for in each subparagraph of Article 9(1) proviso of the Information Disclosure Act. In the event of refusal, public institutions in receipt of a request for disclosure of information held and managed by the public must specifically confirm and verify the contents of the information in conflict with any legal interests or fundamental rights, and determine the legitimacy of their assertion by comparing and comparing the interests of the public, such as guaranteeing the fairness in performing the duty to protect the public by non-disclosure, guaranteeing the citizen's right to know, participating in state affairs, and securing transparency in state administration (see, etc.).

B) Article 9(1) main text of the Information Disclosure Act provides that “Any information held and managed by a public institution shall be subject to disclosure.” Article 9(1) proviso of the same Act provides that “Information prescribed as confidential or confidential matters by other Acts or orders delegated by other Acts (limited to the National Assembly Regulations, Supreme Court Regulations, National Election Commission Regulations, National Election Commission Regulations, Presidential Decree, and municipal ordinances)” may not be disclosed. The purpose of the provision is to avoid conflicts between other Acts by respecting confidential or confidential matters (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1798, Oct. 23, 2008). Information provided as confidential or confidential matters by other Acts or orders delegated by other Acts should be that the content of the order delegated by other Acts or subordinate statutes differently from the Information Disclosure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du17384, Apr. 10, 2014).

C) Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that “in the event of an investigation, the disclosure of information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure, the disclosure of which has considerable grounds to believe that the performance of duties would significantly be difficult.” The purport of this Act is to prevent the disclosure of the methods, procedures, etc. of an investigation from causing a significant difficulty in performing duties by an investigation agency. As such, written opinions, reporting documents, cameras, legal review, and internal investigation data, etc. in the investigation records may be deemed to fall under such scope. However, on the ground that the information subject to the request for disclosure falls under the above written opinion, etc., it does not immediately mean that the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act is not the information subject to non-disclosure as provided by Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act, and it is reasonable to deem the information to fall under the information subject to non-disclosure only if there is reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure of the methods, procedures, etc. of investigation is considerably difficult

D) “Where there is a reasonable ground to believe that the fair performance of duties would substantially interfere with the disclosure of information in the process of supervision, inspection, test, regulation, tendering contract, technology development decision-making process, or internal review, etc.” under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act refers to cases where there is a high probability that fair performance of duties would substantially interfere with the objective of the information disclosure system under Article 1 of the same Act and the legislative intent of the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the same Act. Whether the information constitutes such cases shall be determined carefully depending on specific matters by comparing and comparing the interests of fairness in performing duties protected by non-disclosure and the interests of the people such as guaranteeing the right to know, guaranteeing the people’s participation in government affairs, and securing transparency in government affairs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du2913, Jun. 10, 2010; 2013Du301, Jul. 24, 2014).

E) Information subject to non-disclosure pursuant to the main sentence of Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act includes not only “personal identifiable information that determines whether information is subject to non-disclosure based on the form or type of information, such as name and resident registration number, etc. under the Information Disclosure Act, but also “information that is likely to cause harm to personal and mental life or make it impossible to lead a free privacy, as a result of disclosure of personal information by examining the details of the information in detail (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Du2361, Jun. 18, 2012).”

F) Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act provides, “Information subject to non-disclosure, where disclosure is likely to seriously undermine the legitimate interests of corporations, organizations, or individuals if disclosure is made,” or “all confidential matters concerning business activities that are advantageous to the disclosure of information held and managed by public institutions,” and the determination of whether disclosure is likely to seriously undermine the legitimate interests of the corporations, etc., in light of the legislative purport of the Information Disclosure Act, i.e., guaranteeing the people’s right to know, and ensuring the transparency of national participation and state administration.” The determination of whether disclosure is likely to seriously undermine the legitimate interests of the corporations, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du2010, Dec. 23, 2010).”

2) In light of the legal principles as examined in Article 9(1)1(b) of the Information Disclosure Act, each of the above information of this case is acknowledged as constituting the account books or documents submitted by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 102(1) of the Labor Standards Act or the statement statement containing the contents examined by the user (D), and Article 103 of the Labor Standards Act provides that "the labor inspector shall not maintain any confidential information known to him/her in the course of performing his/her duties." However, Article 103 of the Labor Standards Act provides that "The above information of this case is subject to abstract and general non-disclosure obligations, and does not provide any information subject to non-disclosure, and Article 9(1)1(b) of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "where the other party to the request for information disclosure is an organization to which the labor inspector or the labor inspector belongs, the other party to the request for information disclosure shall not be subject to non-disclosure information under Article 9(1)2 of the Information Disclosure Act, and thus, it does not constitute an exceptional purpose of the Information Disclosure Act."

3) In light of the legal principles as examined in Article 9(1)4(c) of the Information Disclosure Act as to each of the information of this case, it is acknowledged that the defendant's labor inspector belonging to the defendant constitutes a book or document submitted by the plaintiff or a statement stating the contents of the respondent D's statement. According to Gap evidence No. 2, the defendant issued a "administrative Termination" disposition with respect to all of the appeals related to each of the information of this case. The above facts and the purport of the whole arguments are as follows. In other words, the defendant already issued a "administrative Termination" disposition with respect to the appeal related to each of the information of this case, i.e., the defendant's source and contents of each of the information of this case can not be disclosed to the public, or it is difficult to conclude that the information of this case is not subject to non-disclosure due to the lack of special information collection process, and ii) the defendant's submission of the information of this case to the "No. 9 of the Information Disclosure Act" or the "No. 1 of the Information Disclosure Council" related to the defendant No. 4.

4) The plaintiff asserts that each of the information of this case constitutes information of this case under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Information Disclosure Act, if disclosed, will significantly obstruct the fair performance of the defendant's personnel management duties. However, in light of the legal principles as seen in the above subparagraph (d) of Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act, each of the information of this case is not only information unrelated to the defendant's personnel management duties because it concerns labor relations between the plaintiff and its employees, such as the plaintiff and the petitioner Eul, etc., but also information of this case is not related to the defendant's personnel management duties. The petitioner Eul used each of the information of this case in this case, which is likely to file another petition or legal action against the defendant. Thus, the "information of this case" cannot be seen as "information that has considerable reason to believe that the fair performance of the defendant's duties would be significantly impeded." Accordingly, the plaintiff's argument that each of the information of this case

5) Further, according to the legal principles as seen in Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act among the information of this case, each of the information of this case is classified as follows: (a) disclosure of private information of [Attachment 1] Nos. 6, 7, and 8; and (b) disclosure of private information of this case constitutes unlawful because it infringes on the privacy; and (c) at least it is deemed that the disclosure of the disclosed information does not constitute disclosure at the time of the individual’s appearance based on the public assumption; and (d) it is not yet known to the general public; and (e) it is deemed that the disclosure of the information of this case constitutes an individual’s non-disclosure or apprehension (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15922, Dec. 22, 2006). Accordingly, each of the information of this case includes personal health information, such as reasons why the request for disclosure was made Byung, and thus, information of this case falls under the category No. 6, 7, and 8 of the Information Disclosure Act, which should not be disclosed.

B) As to the information listed in [Attachment 1] No. 1 among the information of this case

(1) Of the statement statement of the respondent Nos. 1 list No. 1, the part concerning E’s request and paid soldier’s questioning or statement related to non-processing is information belonging to E’s privacy as seen in Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act. Thus, the remaining part except the aforementioned part pertaining to non-disclosure information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act. In light of the fact that the respondent’s explanation about the content of the petition or the methods of the Plaintiff’s operation, etc. is most of the respondent’s statement, and that the respondent’s resident registration number, cycle, home call, cellular phone part, etc. was determined to be disclosed excluding all personal information such as personal information, etc., it does not constitute “information pertaining to an individual” as stipulated in Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act

(2) On the other hand, Article 14 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "where information requested for disclosure contains any of the subparagraphs of Article 9 (1) and any part that can be disclosed is mixed, and two parts can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of a request for disclosure, the part falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 9 (1) shall be excluded." Thus, in a case where a court examines the illegality of a disposition rejecting disclosure of information by an administrative agency, and where it is recognized that two parts can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of a request for disclosure, the part that constitutes information subject to disclosure and the part that could be disclosed can be disclosed are combined, and where it is recognized that the two parts can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of a request for disclosure, the decision to refuse disclosure of information should be revoked by specifying the part that could be disclosed (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du6425, Mar. 11, 2003). Thus, the same legal principle applies to cases where a dispute over the illegality of a request for disclosure of information.

C) As to the remaining information of this case, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, i.e., list 1 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11 listed above, i.e., list 1 listed above, i., list 2, 9, 10, 11 listed above, i.e., list 1 listed above 1 listed above - list 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 included individual working hours, details of leave application, employment contract form (non-regular list) with the Plaintiff 1 listed above - list 5 listed above 1 listed above - list 1 listed above - list 6 - list 1 listed above - list 1 listed above - list 4, 10, 14, 15, and 16 listed above - list 1 listed above - list , excluding the name of residents, date of application, telephone number , and 16 listed above - the list -

6) In light of the legal principles as seen in Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act and the overall purport of each evidence and pleadings, each of the information of this case does not constitute “information that is likely to seriously undermine the legitimate interests of the corporation, etc. if disclosed as confidential business or trade secrets of the corporation, organization, or individual as provided in Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the information of this case constitutes information subject to non-disclosure as provided in Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act is rejected.

① In the case of each information listed in the [Attachment 1] list 1, 2, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14, the information of the Plaintiff’s trade union and labor-management council includes the status of establishment and operation of the Plaintiff’s trade union and labor-management council, overtime allowance, sick application and bonus payment, the contents of the labor contract between the Plaintiff and workers, wage and bonus payment method, etc. However, it is difficult to see that the information above falls under “any confidential matters concerning the business activities” as the contents already notified to the relevant personnel or workers. Considering the Plaintiff’s business contents, purpose, manufacturing items, etc., it is difficult to see that the contents of each of the above information include business secrets or know-how that should be specially protected even in light of the Plaintiff’s business contents, business secrets, or all confidential matters concerning business activities, as seen earlier, it is difficult to see that the Defendant’s disclosure of the information in the [Attachment 1] list of the Plaintiff’s employees under suspicion of non-payment of the Plaintiff’s labor union.”

② Of the instant information, each information listed in the [Attachment 1] Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 15 includes the details of the Plaintiff’s operation method and application details of excess work allowances. However, each of the above information appears to have already been publicly announced to the employees employed by the Plaintiff. In light of the Plaintiff’s business contents, purpose, production items, etc., it is difficult to view that it includes management and trade secrets or know-how, etc., which should be specially protected. C In particular, according to the evidence No. 5, the Defendant decided to disclose “the written agreement with the representative of workers on the compensation leave system” related to the payment of excess work allowances. Accordingly, each information listed in the table Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 15 based on the above agreement does not constitute “the management and trade secrets of the Plaintiff.”

③ In the case of each information listed in the separate sheet Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 10 among the information of this case, it cannot be deemed that any information corresponding to the Plaintiff’s management and trade secrets is included. Thus, it is not included in the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

4 In the case of the information listed in the [Attachment 1] No. 16 among the information of this case, it seems that there is room for the division of work in which the non-regular workers are in charge of the plaintiff's non-regular workers by position to correspond to the "all confidential matters concerning the plaintiff's business and trade secrets" or "business activities". However, even if it seems that the above "non-regular work division" information is merely an abstract and general work division, it is difficult to view that there is a risk of considerable harm to the plaintiff's business legitimate interests even if it is disclosed.

7) Sub-determination

Therefore, among the information disclosure disposition of this case, the part on which the disclosure of information was decided as to the "information subject to non-disclosure" in attached Table 2 (attached Form 1 list No. 1, E's ask or paid soldiers' request or statement related to non-processing and the information No. 6, 7, and 8 listed in attached Table 1 list No. 6, 7, and 8) among the information disclosure disposition of this case is unlawful. However, the part on the remaining information of this case except the information stated in attached Table 2 "information subject to non-disclosure" as alleged by the plaintiff is legitimate because there is no reason under Article 9 (1) 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition. In addition, according to the records of this case, the execution of the information disclosure disposition within the above scope of acceptance is recognized as urgently needed to prevent irrecoverable damage and there is no evidence to recognize that the suspension of execution is likely to seriously affect public welfare, and the execution is suspended ex officio until the judgment of the appellate court of this case is rendered.

Judges Kim Yong-hwan

Judges Dognaia

A person shall be appointed.