2. The part concerning the information described in Section 1(a) through (14) of Attached Table 1 among the dispositions rejecting the disclosure of information as to the information listed in Attached Table 1 against the Plaintiffs on July 18, 2007 by the Defendants, shall be revoked as to the information described in paragraph 1(b)(1)(a), 2(2)(b)(1), 3(a)(1)(i), 3(b)(1)(i)(i), and 3(b)(1)(i).

3. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants as to the information stated in attached Table 1 Schedule 2(a)(2) are dismissed.

4. Of the litigation costs, 20% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and 80% is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

(a) Acquisition of stocks of Korea Exchange Bank Co., Ltd. Ⅳ of Lone Star Fund IV and approval of excess stock holding limit by the Financial Supervisory Commission;

(1) Around February 1998, Korea Exchange Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Exchange Bank”) received recommendations for improvement of management on the ground that it did not meet 8% its equity capital ratio [the equity capital ratio to risk assets set forth in the Bank for International Settlements (IS); hereinafter “BS ratio”) and received recommendations for improvement of management from the head of the Bank Supervision on April 9, 200. After that, Lone Star Fund IV (Lone Star FaS.), L.P. 2, L. 3, U.S. K. 2, 207, 208, 300 shares shares shares issued by the Korea Exchange Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Exchange Bank”) and 4, 207, 207, 300 shares shares purchase and sale contracts between the Korea Exchange Bank and 4, 207, 207, 300 shares purchase and sale agreements between the Korea Exchange Bank.

(2) On September 2, 2003, Lone Star changed its name to the Financial Services Commission (the Financial Services Commission later; hereinafter the same shall apply), on August 21, 2003, Lone Star-K Holdings (SCA), a subsidiary company of Lone Star established at Belgium, submitted to the Financial Services Commission 4,000 won per share of 268,750,000 shares of the foreign exchange bank from September 2 to October 2003, 2003; 57,101,715 shares of the existing shareholders and foreign exchange banks held by the Export-Import Bank (the Financial Services Commission; hereinafter the same shall apply); 5,400 won per share of 5,851,715 shares (the total number of shares issued at Belgium; 5,400 won per share of 5,405,715 shares acquired more than 1050/100 shares (the total number of shares issued) and 1050/10060 shares per share of 5,701050

(3) On September 26, 2003, the Financial Supervisory Service (hereinafter referred to as the “Financial Supervisory Service”) reviewed Lone Star’s application for the above approval, and submitted “approval for the acquisition of the stocks of Lone Star’s foreign exchange bank”, which is the information listed in Schedule 1(1)(b)(1) of the attached Table No. 1 on the gold reduction date. Pursuant to Article 15(3) of the Banking Act and Article 8(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Banking Act (Article 2(3) of the Act on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry, where it is deemed that there are special reasons, such as the liquidation of insolvent financial institutions under Article 15(3) of the Banking Act and Article 8(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, even if an insolvent financial institution fails to meet excess holding requirements under Article 5(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Banking Act, the Financial Supervisory Service (hereinafter referred to as the “Financial Services Commission”) may approve the acquisition of voting stocks of the same bank in excess of 10/1050% voting stocks

(b) Examination of qualifications for Lone Star's Lone Star;

(1) A foreign exchange holding shareholder, including Lone Star, Cmerz and the Export-Import Bank of Korea, has submitted review data on whether the same person’s stockholding limit meets the excess holding limit at the end of June and the end of December of each year pursuant to the main sentence of Article 11-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Banking Act, which provides that the same person’s stockholding limit shall be regularly examined every half year. Lone Star included the review data as of April 30, 2003; the review data as of September 15, 2004; the review data as of May 2, 2004; the review data as of May 2, 2004; the review data as of May 2, 2004; and the data as of the end of each month from the end of June 26, 2005; and the review data as of May 26, 2005, respectively.

(2) Accordingly, on the basis of data submitted by Lone Star, etc. on a half-yearly basis, he examined whether Lone Star, etc. satisfies excess holding requirements for the same person’s stockholding limit, and submitted a half-yearly report on the examination results from the end of June 2003 to the end of June 2006 (the report on the examination results as of the end of June 11, 2004), the report on the examination results as of December 10, 2004, the report on the examination results as of the end of June 2004, the report on the examination results as of July 2004, 2005, the report on the examination results as of November 25, 2005, the report on the examination results as of the end of June 26, 2006, and the report on the examination results as of September 26, 2006, the report on the examination results as of the end of June 27, 2006.

(c) Approval for the acquisition of shares of one bank and holding of shares in gold bars, a corporation of the Tear-a-a-a-counter brokerage;

(1) On April 14, 2004, an application for approval was filed with respect to the acquisition of an additional 6.39% of the shares of a single bank, which is a subsidiary established for the purpose of holding shares of a single bank (hereinafter referred to as "a bank"), whose head office is in Singapore, including 3.6% of the shares of a single bank, and at the time of the application, the documents, such as the information set forth in Section 3(a) of Annex 1 attached hereto, were submitted.

(2) On May 28, 2004, upon examining the application for approval of tea-a-a-a-counter trading, a gold bullion submitted a proposal to approve the acquisition of shares of one bank, which is the information listed in attached Table 1 Schedule 1 Schedule 3(b)(1) on the gold reduction. The gold reduction issued a disposition to approve the holding of 6.39% of the shares of one bank by the Angegegeles Entertainmentn on the same day by additionally acquiring 6.39% of the shares of one bank.

D. Progress of related litigation

(1) On October 14, 2004, Nonparty 1, etc., a stockholder of the foreign exchange bank, filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the above approval disposition on the ground that the above approval disposition is null and void because the approval disposition on holding more than the stock holding limit of the same person against Lone Star did not meet the requirements under Article 8(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Banking Act. On August 31, 2006, Nonparty 1, etc., the plaintiff of the above lawsuit, as a stockholder of the foreign exchange bank, filed a judgment dismissing the lawsuit by Nonparty 1, etc. on the ground that the above approval disposition cannot be acknowledged as standing to sue because it is an indirect or factual interest in the above approval disposition as a stockholder of the foreign exchange bank, and the Seoul High Court, which was appealed as 2006Nu237488, was sentenced to its dismissal on May 8, 2007, which did not have their own nature as a result of the revocation of the plaintiff's standing to sue's own stock holding limit as the grounds for appeal.

(2) Meanwhile, at the time of the conclusion of a stock acquisition contract between the foreign exchange bank and Lone Star and the approval of excess stock holding limit on Lone Star, Nonparty 2, who held office as the director of the Financial Policy Bureau of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 4, etc. who held office as the vice head of the Korea Exchange Bank on December 7, 2006, violated duties related to the management and sale of the foreign exchange bank, thereby creating a non-competitive sale scheme in violation of the duties related to the management and sale of the foreign exchange bank, and thereby manipulating the defective size and net asset value of the foreign exchange bank, such as the ISD forecast value of the foreign exchange bank, and distorted the need to grant Lone Star the qualification to acquire the shares of the foreign exchange bank, thereby leading Lone Star to take over 51% of the shares of the foreign exchange bank at low price, and thereby committing a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), the Seoul Central District Court and 2006Da1253652, etc.).

E. The plaintiffs' request for disclosure of information and the defendants' rejection disposition

(1) The Plaintiff’s Economic Reform Group is a non-governmental organization aimed at protecting the rights and interests of minority shareholders and improving the legal system related to corporate governance. Plaintiff 2 is the researcher of the Plaintiff’s Economic Reform Group. On June 25, 2007, the Plaintiffs filed a claim with the Chairman of the Financial Services Commission (the Financial Supervisory Commission prior to the change of the name) to disclose information listed in the attached Table 2, the Defendant’s Financial Supervisory Service Governor, to the effect that the Plaintiff is entitled to file a claim for information on the approval of excess holding of the stock holding limit for the same person of foreign exchange bank stocks against Lone Star, which was held by the Korea Exchange Bank, on a half-yearly basis, on the examination of qualifications and non-financial business operators under the Banking Act, and on the approval of excess holding limit

(2) On July 18, 2007, the Defendants rejected disclosure on the grounds that the disclosure of the information claimed by the Plaintiffs constitutes the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4, 5, and 7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) on the grounds that the disclosure of the information constitutes the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4, 5, and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act, including the matters in progress of trial in the Supreme Court.

(3) While the instant lawsuit is pending, the Plaintiffs specified the scope of the information initially requested to be disclosed to the Defendants by modifying the purport of the claim (hereinafter the Defendants’ refusal to disclose information on July 18, 2007) as the information listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter the Defendants’ refusal to disclose information on July 18, 2007).

F. Progress

Supreme Court Decision 2007Du11412 Decided September 20, 2007 dismissed the appeal by Nonparty 1, etc. On the other hand, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Dahap1352, 1295 (Merger), and 1351 (Merger) Decided November 24, 2008 on the grounds that it is difficult to see that there was a violation of the duty or there was no awareness of a violation of the duty of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) against Nonparty 2, 3, and 4 on November 24, 2008, and that the prosecutor appealed to Seoul High Court Decision 2008No3201.

G. Classification of information subject to the instant request for information disclosure

Whether there is a claim for information disclosure and a refusal disposition of information disclosure listed in Annex 1 List 1 List 2(b)(2)(3)(4)(a), (2)(2)(b)(2) through (6) of Annex 2 of Annex 1 Information, the information listed in Annex 1 List 2(2)(b)(5)(6), 1 List 1 List 1(3)(b)(2)(2)(b), and 3(1)(1)(1)(b)(1), 9(1)(3)(1)(3(1)(2)(2) of Annex 1 Information, 9(1)(1(2)(1)(b)(1), 7(1)(3)(1)(2)(2)(2) of the Information Disclosure Act, and 9(1)(3)(1)(5)(2)(1)(2)(3)(2)(2)(1)(1)(2)(2)(a) of the Information Disclosure.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers), Evidence Nos. 13, Evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part concerning the first and second information among the lawsuit in this case is lawful

A. Part concerning information 1

According to the result of the non-disclosure inspection and examination of the information No. 1 in this court, it can be seen that the information No. 1 was submitted to the Defendants or prepared by the Defendants at the time of the Plaintiffs’ request for information disclosure, and in light of the background leading up to the Plaintiffs’ request for information disclosure, details of the first request for information disclosure, and the background leading up to the amendment of the purport of the instant claim, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiffs requested information disclosure which the Defendants had already prepared, acquired, or retained and managed from Lone Star at the time of the Plaintiffs’ request for information disclosure. Therefore, regarding the information No. 1 that the Defendants did not retain and manage at the time of the Plaintiffs’ request for information

B. Part concerning 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 hold and manage the information that is subject to disclosure. However, in the case that the public institution does not hold and manage the information, there is no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du9459, Jan. 13, 2006, etc.) and there is no evidence to prove that there is a considerable probability that the Defendants actually hold and manage the information about the second information (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du9459, Jan. 13, 2006, etc.).

3. Whether the disposition of this case relating to information 3, 4, and 5 is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the information No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5 do not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under each subparagraph of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, the Defendants are obligated to disclose such information.

(2) The defendants' assertion

Information No. 3 and Information No. 4 are information related to the approval of holding excess stocks of the same person under the Banking Act related to the acquisition of Lone Star’s stocks in the foreign exchange bank. This constitutes information related to the judgment in progress as Supreme Court Decision 2007Du11412 at the time the Plaintiffs’ request for disclosure of information, and the judgment in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Da1352, 1295 (merged) and 1351 (merged) and constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act, and constitutes information related to the supervision and regulation of Lone Star’s stocks at Lone Star’s meeting and the affairs related to the Fone Star’s meeting and the affairs related to the examination of excess stocks as of December 2, 2006, which is considerably likely to seriously interfere with the fair performance of affairs, such as the reduction of the amount, if disclosed, constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

In addition, information No. 5 is an information on the approval of stockholding under the Banking Act relating to the acquisition of shares of one bank in the Teab-a-a-the-counter trading company. This constitutes information on management and trade secrets of the Teab-a-counter trading company, which, if disclosed, is likely to seriously undermine the legitimate interests of the Teab-a-counter trading company. Thus, information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Criteria for determining whether a case falls under Article 9(1)4, 5, or 7 of the Information Disclosure Act

The Information Disclosure Act provides that all information held and managed by public institutions shall be subject to non-disclosure in principle for the purpose of guaranteeing citizens' right to know and securing citizens' participation in state affairs and transparency in state affairs, by prescribing the matters necessary for the citizen's request for disclosure of information held and managed by public institutions and the duty to disclose information to public institutions.

Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act provides for “information related to a trial in progress” as a subject of non-disclosure in view of the content of the provision and the purport of the Information Disclosure Act, and the institutional purpose of securing a fair and smooth trial in light of the purpose of the Information Disclosure Act, the “information related to a trial in progress” under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act shall not be all the information related to a trial in progress, but shall be deemed to mean only the information that is likely to have an impact on the trial in progress where the relevant information is disclosed, if so,

Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, such as matters in the process of audit, supervision, inspection, test, regulation, tendering contract, technology development, personnel management, decision-making, or internal review, refers to cases where there is a high probability that the fair performance of duties would seriously interfere with the fair performance of duties if disclosed in light of the purpose of the information disclosure system under Article 1 of the Information Disclosure Act and the legislative intent of the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, and the purpose of legislation of the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act. The issue of whether it falls under such cases shall be determined carefully in accordance with specific cases by comparing and comparing the interests of the public protected by non-disclosure such as the fair performance of duties, the guarantee of citizens' right to know, the interests of the public through the disclosure, the participation of the people in government affairs, and the interests of securing the transparency of government affairs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1294

Article 9 (1) 7 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "any information concerning business secrets of a corporation, etc., which is deemed likely to seriously undermine legitimate interests of the corporation, etc., if disclosed, shall be subject to disclosure of all the information held and managed by a public institution in principle." In light of the above provision, "business secrets of a corporation, etc.," under Article 2 (2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, is not limited to "business secrets" under Article 2 (2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, and shall be interpreted as "all information concerning business activities which are advantageous to the disclosure of others" or "any confidential information concerning business activities," but the above provision shall be interpreted as "matters concerning business secrets of a corporation, etc., which are likely to seriously undermine legitimate interests of the corporation, etc.," and it shall be interpreted that whether there is legitimate interest in such information disclosure shall be strictly interpreted in light of the legislative intent of the above Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du787, Jul. 17, 2008).

(2) Information 3, 4, and 5

According to the court's findings of inspection and examination of information No. 3, 4 and 5, the information No. 3 is that: (a) documents submitted by Lone Star while applying for an approval for holding more than the stockholding limit of the same person based on acquisition of stocks of foreign exchange banks [the information No. 1 (a) through (14) of the Schedule No. 1] and the Lone Star's application for approval should be deemed to meet the requirements of Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Banking Act and it is reasonable to approve the excess stockholding limit of the same person on the Lone Star's own, along with the review opinion that it is reasonable to enter such excess holding limit on the 20th anniversary of the date of approval [the information No. 1 (b) of the Schedule No. 1; (b) and the list of information No. 1) recorded on the 20th anniversary of the date of December 203 and the list of information No. 16th of the end of December 206]; and

(3) Whether the third information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act

(A) Whether it falls under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act

As seen in the above facts, a trial pending in the Supreme Court, which was held by the Defendants as the grounds for the disposition at the time of the disposition in this case, filed a lawsuit seeking nullification on the ground that the approval disposition for excess possession limit of the stock holding limit by Nonparty 1, etc. against Lone Star on the grounds that it is null and void, but after the first instance court and the appellate court rendered a judgment on retirement and dismissal of appeal on the grounds that no standing to sue exists in the first instance court, they appealed to the Supreme Court No. 2007Du11412 and asserted the existence of standing to sue as the grounds for appeal. The third information is not directly related to the issues of the above Supreme Court case in light of its contents, namely, whether Nonparty 1, etc. filed a lawsuit seeking nullification of the approval for the acquisition of stocks by the foreign exchange bank against Lone Star, which is a shareholder of the foreign exchange bank, and thus, it does not constitute information likely to affect the

The Defendants stated only the above Supreme Court case in the course of trial in relation to the original 3 information, and asserted that, in addition to the above Supreme Court case, only during the proceeding of the lawsuit in this case, there were cases in which the Seoul Central District Court 2006Da1352, 1295, and 1351 (combined) were pending, the third information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act as well as information related to the trial in the above Seoul Central District Court case.

However, in an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, a disposition agency may add other reasons only to the extent that the original reason and basic factual relations are recognized to be identical. The existence or absence of the basic factual relations here is determined based on whether the basic social factual relations are identical in a basic point of view by citing specific facts before the legal evaluation of the grounds for disposition. The addition of the grounds for disposition was not specified in the initial disposition, and the parties had been aware of such facts, and thus it cannot be deemed identical to the initial disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du12629, Jan. 13, 2006, etc.). The purpose of restricting the addition of the grounds for disposition in an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition is to realize the substantial rule of law and protect trust of the other party to the administrative disposition by guaranteeing the other party’s right to defense of the administrative disposition.

Inasmuch as the Defendants specified the purport that the information No. 3 was related to a trial in progress as the Supreme Court No. 2007Du11412 in the disposition of this case, the Defendants’ assertion that the ground for the disposition of this case corresponds to information related to the trial in progress as the Seoul Central District Court No. 2006Da1352, 1295 (Merger) and 1351 (Merger) which is entirely separate from the above Supreme Court case, constitutes information related to the trial in progress as the Seoul Central District Court No. 2006Da1352, 1295 (Joint), 1355 (Joint), 1351) and 1351 (Joint), it is not permissible as it adds to the Seoul Central District Court No. 206Da1352, Dec. 1, 2006, which did not affect the above facts of the recognition, and thus, it cannot be permitted that the Plaintiff acquired the shares of the Bank as the main subject of property breach of trust, such as the risk of trust agreement.

Therefore, information related to the trial, in which the third information is in progress, cannot be deemed information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act.

(B) Whether it falls under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act

As seen in the above facts, it is difficult to view that there is no possibility to interfere with the fair performance of duties, such as the disclosure of information under Article 3 of the Information Disclosure Act, on the following grounds: (a) even if the third information is disclosed, the approval for excess holding limit on the same person to Lone Star, etc., or the fair performance of duties, on the half-yearly basis from the end of December 2003 to the end of June 2006, since the approval for excess holding limit on the same person to Lone Star as at the time of the instant disposition, and the examination of eligibility as at the end of December 12, 2006, in light of the content of the third information, the background leading up to the Plaintiffs’ request for disclosure of information, etc., if the third information is disclosed, it does not significantly interfere with the fair performance of duties, such as the disclosure of information under Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act.

(C) Whether it falls under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act

According to the court’s result of non-disclosure inspection and examination of the information No. 3, the information No. 3 contains part of the confidential information about the business activities of Lone Star, etc. However, in light of the general information about the establishment of Lone Star or general matters related to the acquisition of stocks of foreign exchange banks, etc., and in light of the fact that considerable period has already elapsed from the time of the information preparation, the information No. 3 is not likely to considerably undermine the legitimate interests of Lone Star, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed as the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

(4) Whether information No. 4 constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act

As seen in the above facts, since the gold reduction et al., at the time of the disposition of this case, is conducting an examination of eligibility as to whether Lone Star's stock holding limit satisfies the excess holding limit as of the end of December 2006, the information No. 4 is in the process of decision-making with respect to Lone Star's loan, such as gold reduction et al. on December 2, 2006, and if disclosed, it is highly likely that the decision-making process is distorted or neutral and fair due to external influence, pressure, etc., such as the gold reduction, etc. on the eligibility review duty, and it is highly likely that the decision-making process may seriously interfere with the fair and objective performance of duties such as gold reduction, etc. Thus, the information No. 4 constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Information Disclosure Act (Article 9 (1) 4 and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act does not separately determine whether the information No. 4 constitutes information subject to non-disclosure).

(5) Whether information No. 5 constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act

According to the court’s result of non-disclosure inspection and examination of information No. 5, the information No. 5 contains part of the confidential information about business activities, such as interior trading, etc. However, in light of the fact that the information contains general information about the establishment of hy-a-a-a-the-art trading or general matters related to the acquisition of stocks of one bank, etc., and that considerable period has already elapsed from the time of the preparation of the information, the information No. 5 is not deemed to have a risk of significantly undermining legitimate interests, such as interior trading, etc., if disclosed. Thus, such information cannot be deemed to constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

(6) Sub-committee

The information No. 3 and No. 5 do not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4, 5, and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act, and the information No. 4 constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act. Thus, the part concerning the information No. 3 and No. 5 among the dispositions of this case is unlawful, and the part concerning the information No. 4 is legitimate.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the information listed in Section 1-A(1)(2) through (6) of the Attached Table 1-2(b), the information described in Section 2(2)(2) through (6), and the part concerning the information described in Section 3(b)(2) of the Disposition in this case is dismissed. The information described in Section 1-A(1) through (14 of the Attached Table 1-2(a) of the Disposition in this case, Paragraph 1(b)(1), Paragraph 2(a)(1), Paragraph 2(b)(1) information, Paragraph 3(a)(1) through (11, and Paragraph 3(b)(1) of the Disposition in this case is justified, and the plaintiffs' claims as to the information described in Section 1-2(a)(2) of the Attached Table 1-2 of the Disposition in this case are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of the plaintiffs.

[Attachment]

Judge Han-sung (Presiding Judge)