1. Details of the decision not to disclose;

A. Eight corporations established by Lone Star Fund in Belgium and Luxembourg for the purpose of investing in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Lone Star Corporation”) are currently in progress upon filing an application for arbitration with Korea with the International ICSID (ICSD) on November 21, 2012 on the ground of the violation of the Agreement on the Mutual Promotion and Protection of Investment between the Government of the Republic of Korea and Belgium-Luxembourg-Economic Union.

B. On May 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Minister of Justice for disclosure to the Minister of Justice for the International Arbitration case (Case No. ICSIB/12/37, hereinafter “instant International Arbitration case”) brought against the Republic of Korea for “the actual total amount of the claim requested by the arbitration applicant and documents stating the information or the information.” On June 2015, the Minister of Justice disclosed only “the actual total amount of the claim claimed by the arbitration applicant,” and on August 2015, “In addition, the amount of claim filed by Lone Star corporation (applicants) is USD 4.677 billion,95 million, and if Lone Star corporation’s sales transaction was made in a timely manner, the said amount is the amount equivalent to the purchase price that it could have accrued from the corporation, plus the amount of interest calculated by deducting the actual interest accrued to Lone Star corporation, including the final loan on the financial branch and the interest accrued to the corporation.”

C. On December 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a non-disclosure claim with the Defendant on the ground that “In the instant international arbitration case, the Plaintiff’s total amount of tax and withholding imposed by the Republic of Korea on the applicant for arbitration among the amount of damages claimed and claimed by the applicant, and the Plaintiff’s request for disclosure of the written application for international arbitration stating the name of the applicant for arbitration (hereinafter “instant dispute information”) and the key information. However, on December 15, 2015, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision on the ground that the said information constitutes a non-disclosure information under Article 9(1)1, 2, 4, and 7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) on the ground that the said information constitutes a non-disclosure information under Article 9(1)1, 2, 4, and 7 of the said Act

2. Judgment on ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that “Information prescribed as confidential or confidential in accordance with any other Act or any order issued by any other Act shall be classified as one of the information subject to non-disclosure.” Article 81-13(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 1520, Dec. 19, 2017; hereinafter the same) provides for the principle of non-disclosure that “Tax officials shall not provide or divulge to any other person, or use for any purpose other than the intended purpose, data submitted by a taxpayer to fulfill his/her duty to taxation provided by tax-related Acts, or data, etc. acquired on duty to impose and collect national taxes (hereinafter “tax information”),” and the proviso of Article 9-13(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes

B. The lower court determined that the duty information under the main sentence of Article 81-13(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes does not constitute “information provided as confidential or confidential matters by other Acts” under Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du11544, Mar. 12, 2004). The key information is the total amount of the tax and withheld tax imposed by the Republic of Korea on the applicant among the amount of damages claimed and claimed by the applicant in the instant international arbitration case and the list of the applicants requesting it, and the total amount of the tax and withheld tax imposed by the applicant is not a list of the applicants. Thus, the disclosure of the total amount of the tax and withheld tax amount by the applicant does not include any taxation and withheld tax amount by the applicant, and it is difficult to view that the key information does not constitute taxation information by individual

C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination that the application of Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act was somewhat inappropriate is justifiable and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on taxation information under the main sentence of Article 81-13(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.

3. Determination on grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 4

In light of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court determined that the key information cannot be deemed as falling under “information concerning diplomatic relations, etc., which, if disclosed, is likely to seriously undermine the national interest” provided by Article 9(1)2 of the Information Disclosure Act or “information, the disclosure of which, if disclosed, is likely to seriously undermine the legitimate interests of the corporation, etc.” provided by Article 9(1)7 of the same Act.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of Article 9(1)2 and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

4. Judgment on the third ground for appeal

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the arbitral proceedings do not constitute “judgment” as provided by Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act.

5. Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Noh Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)