2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

A. On May 2, 2012, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade declared the commencement of negotiations with China to enter into Free Trade Agreements (Free Trade Agreements, Korea-China FTA) and held the first negotiation on May 14, 2012.

B. (1) On August 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the disclosure of information on the impact of Korea-China FTA on agriculture, manufacturing industry, service industry, small and medium enterprises, and small and medium merchants, including the information listed in the list of information disclosure requests in the attached Form.

(2) On September 10, 2012, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade predicted, analyzed, and examined the impact of Korea-China FTA on agriculture, manufacturing, and service business on the Plaintiff on the website of Korea-China FTA (htttp:/www. Rofta.go.go/china). ② The report or research result predicted, analyzed, and examined the impact of Korea-China FTA on small and medium merchants is not prepared, kept, and managed as a matter of duty (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On September 12, 2012, the Plaintiff rejected the disclosure of information on the list of the request for disclosure of information (hereinafter “the report or research result prepared by government-funded research institutes”). However, on September 2, 2012, the Plaintiff raised an objection on the grounds that “the report or research result, which was remarkably affected by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, is likely to seriously affect the manufacturing industry or small and medium-medium FTA (hereinafter “the report or research result”).”

The report or research result which predicted, analyzed, and examined the impact on the small merchants is not an official document or information acquired and retained."

D. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was divided into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy according to the amendment of the Government Organization Act on March 23, 2013. Accordingly, the Defendant succeeded to the business listed in the list of information disclosure requests in attached

2. Whether the disposition of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The results of the review or research on the impact of the Korea-China FTA are merely an analysis of the impact on the Korean industry, and it is not related to the negotiation strategies, so it does not constitute a reason for non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 2 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Information Disclosure Act").

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) The freedom of press and publication under Article 21 of the Constitution is premised on the formation of free will, and this is indivisible with the collection or disclosure of information, and thus, “the right to access, collect and process information,” i.e., the right to know, is naturally included in the freedom of expression (see Constitutional Court Order 88Ma22, Sept. 4, 1989). In order to guarantee the citizen’s right to know and enhance the transparency of state administration, Article 3 of the Information Disclosure Act stipulates that information held and managed by public institutions should be disclosed in principle. However, Article 9 exceptionally lists information subject to non-disclosure, and one of them is “information that is likely to seriously undermine the national interest if disclosed” under Article 1(1)2 of the Constitution. Ultimately, in order to refuse information disclosure on the grounds of the foregoing, the benefits protected by non-disclosure should exceed the general right to know that is included in the citizen’s right to know, and should be determined to the extent that the citizen’s specific interest required by the administrative agency related to the disclosure should be affected by the State’s right to claim for disclosure.

Meanwhile, Article 14 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "in a case where the information requested for disclosure contains the part falling under the information subject to non-disclosure under each subparagraph of Article 9 (1) and the part that can be disclosed, if two parts can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of the request for disclosure, the part that constitutes the information subject to non-disclosure shall be excluded." Thus, in a case where the court examines the illegality of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information by the administrative agency, and where the part that constitutes 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 the request for disclosure, and where it is recognized that the two parts can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of the request for disclosure, the part that can be disclosed among the above information should be specified and revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du

(2) According to the result of the non-disclosure inspection as to the list of the separate sheet of the information disclosure claim filed by this court, since the economic effect and the impact by industry (non-disclosure) are to analyze the degree of impact on the domestic industry according to the scenarios, or to analyze the negotiation strategies (see, e.g., Nos. 1 through 4, 6), (see, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., 5, 7, and 8), if exposed to the other party to the negotiation, it would be likely to undermine the negotiation power, and even if disclosed after the negotiation of the Korea-China FTA is terminated, the plaintiff's interest may not be infringed, and the economic effect and impact by industry are mere simple analysis of the current status of the economic power of the Republic of Korea, China, and Japan in the list of the information disclosure claim in the separate sheet, and the remaining parts are likely to significantly undermine the national interest if disclosed, and the corresponding

subsection (b) of this section.

(3) Therefore, since the remainder of the instant disposition, excluding the economic effect and the impact by industry (non-disclosure) among the instant disposition, is unlawful, it shall be revoked only in accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jin-hun

Judges Domination

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.