2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. On November 15, 2005, the Plaintiff, which is the day of the meeting of the representative of apartment lessee at Yangju-si (name omitted of apartment), requested the Defendant to disclose the information in the attached list (hereinafter the instant information).

B. On November 24, 2005, the Defendant notified that the instant information cannot be disclosed pursuant to Article 9(1)3, 5, 7, and 8 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

(A) Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The legality of disposition.

A. Our argument

As the Plaintiff asserts that the instant information does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act, the instant disposition is unlawful, the Defendant asserts that the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)3, 5, 7, and 8 of the Information Disclosure Act.

(b) Related statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

(c) Markets:

(1) As to Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act

The instant information does not appear to be related to the calculation details, etc. of the sales cost, which is already completed by the Corporation, and related to the management and trade secrets, which are technical or managerial information useful for the production methods or sale methods, and are deemed likely to seriously undermine the Defendant’s legitimate interests if disclosed. This is because it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s reasonable calculation of the price publicly notified by the Defendant would seriously undermine the Defendant’s legitimate interests by disclosing the basis for calculation.

(2) As to Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act

The instant information, including the cost calculation content, is clear that it is not about the decision-making process or any matter in the internal review process, since it is nothing more than the details of the calculation of apartment buyers already completed by the Corporation.

(3) As to Article 9(1)3 and 8 of the Information Disclosure Act

① Since the information of this case does not fall under the grounds for non-disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act, the defendant is obligated to disclose it to the plaintiff as a matter of course. ② The disclosure of the information of this case is able to secure transparency in the calculation process, and furthermore, it can be an opportunity to secure transparency in the housing policy of public institutions and transparency in administrative procedures by using effective means in order to prevent harm caused by the internal omission of public institutions, and further, it is possible to ensure transparency in the housing policy of public institutions and transparency in administrative procedures. In light of the above, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is sufficient to recognize that the disclosure of the information of this case may cause significant harm to the lives, bodies, property protection of the people including apartment occupants, or that there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is a concern that a specific person might suffer any profit or disadvantage due to excessive speculation of real estate.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's assertion is reasonable, and the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful, so it is revoked as per Disposition.

Judges Shin Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)