Attorney Ansan-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Law Firm (Bae), Kim & Lee LLC, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of the decision not to disclose;

(a) For the reasons of the violation of the Agreement on the Mutual Promotion and Protection of Investment between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Belgium (hereinafter referred to as the “Investment Agreement”), eight corporations established in Belgium and Luxembourg (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○”) with a view to investing in the Republic of Korea in the Republic of Korea, on November 21, 2012, and on the grounds of the violation of the International Investment Dispute Settlement Center (ICSD) (hereinafter referred to as the “Investment Agreement”).

The re-application is currently in progress by making a re-application.

B. On May 2015, Plaintiff 200 filed a claim with the Minister of Justice for disclosure of the International Arbitration case (ICSID omitted; hereinafter “instant international Arbitration case”) with the Republic of Korea (ICSID). The Minister of Justice, on June 2015, disclosed only “the actual total amount of the claim claimed by the applicant” in the above claim, but on August 2015, 2015, “the claim amount of ○○○ corporation (the applicant) was USD 4.67,95 million, and the amount of 200,000,000,000,000 won, which is the total amount of 10,000 won and 1.5,000 won, was the sum of the amount of 20,000,000 won and 1.0,000,000 won, which is the amount of 20,000,000 won and 1.0,000,00 won.

2. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "information specified as confidential or confidential information in accordance with other Acts or orders issued under other Acts shall be classified as one of the information subject to non-disclosure, and Article 81-13(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 15220, Dec. 19, 2017; hereinafter the same) provides that "tax officials shall not provide or divulge to others, or use for any purpose other than the intended purpose, the data that taxpayers have submitted to fulfill their tax liability provided by tax-related Acts (hereinafter referred to as "tax information") but the data they have acquired for the purpose of imposing or collecting national taxes (hereinafter referred to as "tax information") shall not be provided or disclosed to others, and exceptionally, the provisions of the proviso to Article 81-13(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provide tax information.

B. The court below's taxation information under the main sentence of Article 81-13 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes constitutes "information provided as confidential or non-public information by other Acts" under Article 9 (1) 1 of the Information Disclosure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du11544, Mar. 12, 2004). However, the disputing information is among the international nations of this case.

In the case of the second case, it is difficult to see that the key information is taxation information on the grounds of the fact that, among the damages claimed and claimed by the applicants, the Republic of Korea is the total sum of the tax imposed and collected at source on the applicants and the list of applicants claiming it, and the total amount of the tax and collected at source by the applicants is not included, and even if the total amount of the tax and collected at source is disclosed, it is difficult to see that the relevant information falls under the tax information, and there is no evidence on the fact that the key information falls under the tax information

C. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s reasoning was somewhat inappropriate, but it was just in its conclusion to deny the application of Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act, and there was no error by misapprehending the legal principles on taxation information under the main sentence of Article 81-13(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes. 3. In light of the circumstances as stated in the holding, the lower court’s judgment on the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 4 of the grounds of appeal, the issue information may not be deemed to fall under “information which, if disclosed, is likely to seriously undermine the State’s interest” or “information which, if disclosed, is deemed to fall under the category of information with respect to diplomatic relations, etc. under Article 9(1)2 of the Information Disclosure Act, such as “the disclosure of confidential information, which is deemed to be likely to seriously undermine the State’s legitimate interest, such as a corporation,” and the relevant legal principles and records. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 9(1)7(2) of the Information Disclosure Act.

4. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 3

For the same reason as the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that arbitral proceedings do not correspond to the "judgment" under Article 9 (1) 4 of the Information Disclosure Act. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of each subparagraph of Article 9 (1) 4 of the Information Disclosure Act in the judgment of the court below.

5. Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed and the cost of appeal is borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jae-hyung

Justices Min You-sook of the District Court

Justices Lee Dong-won