Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Jong-ok, Park Tae-tae, Park Jin-ok, Park Jin-Jeng, and Park Jong-il

2. The Administrator of the Central and Regional Employment and Labor Office;

[Defendant-Appellant] Government Law Firm Corporation, Attorneys Kim Jong-hwan, and Tae-Gyeong, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Attorney Park Jae-in, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

B. In the decision on disclosure of information listed in attached Table 1 List 2, which the Administrator of the Central Labor and Labor Office of the defendant Jung-gu Office made on March 20, 2018 to the Plaintiff, the part of the "department and process" among the items of the "comprehensive opinion based on the result of the measurement of each working environment as listed in attached Table 1 List 2 is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

4. The execution of each decision to disclose information set forth in subparagraph 1(a) and (b) shall be suspended by 20 days after the pronouncement of judgment in this case at the appellate court.

A. Status of the Plaintiff and the Defendants

1) The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells electronic equipment, and is operating a stimulting plant (where such plant is used in lusium C), a chemical plant (where located in lusium D), and a Pyeongtaek-si factory (where Pyeongtaek-si is located in lusium) to manufacture semiconductors (hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant factories, including the foregoing factories).

2) The Defendants are delegated with the authority of the Minister of Employment and Labor to receive reports on the result of working environment measurement under Article 42(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and receive and keep the reports on the result of working environment measurement of each of the instant factories (the work environment measurement report and the measurement report; hereinafter “the measurement report”).

B. F and Defendants’ Intervenor’ request for disclosure of information and submission of the Plaintiff’s opinion

1) On February 19, 2018, F requested the disclosure of information under the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) to the head of the Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Office for general programming channel G, and on February 19, 2018, F claimed the disclosure of the Plaintiff’s measurement report of the Plaintiff’s Onnuri factory, flag interest plant, chemical plant, house-to-door factory, Gu 1 factory, Gu 2 factory, and Gu 2 factory. The claim for the flag interest plant and chemical plant was transferred to the head of the Gyeonggi-gu Regional Employment and Labor Office (hereinafter “head of the branch office of the Defendant Gyeonggi”) who is the head of the competent branch office, and the claim for the Pyeongtaek-to-door factory was transferred to the head of the Jung-gu Regional Employment and Labor Site, the head of the competent branch office, as the head of the Defendant Jung-gu Regional Employment and Labor Office (hereinafter “head of the Defendant Pyeongtaek-si Housing Site”).

2) On February 21, 2018, the Defendants’ assistant intervenor filed a request for disclosure of the measurement report of 1994-201 to 2015 with the head of the Defendant’s branch office, which was a non-governmental organization, to the public of the measurement report of 2011-2013, and on March 12, 2018 (F and the Defendants’ assistant intervenor filed a request for disclosure of the measurement report of 1994-2015 (hereinafter “each information of the instant case”).

3) The Defendants notified the Plaintiff of the fact that each of the information of this case was requested to disclose the information of this case, and the Plaintiff submitted an opinion to the effect that each of the above information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure which may substantially harm the Plaintiff’s legitimate interest if disclosed as confidential management and business

C. Determination on disclosure of the Defendants’ information partially

1) The head of the Defendant Gyeonggi District Office, on March 20, 2018, rendered a decision to disclose the same part of the information as indicated in attached Table 1 List No. 1, and the head of the Defendant Pyeongtaek Housing Site Office, on the same day, made a decision to disclose the same information as indicated in attached Table 1 List No. 2, and the specific details thereof are as follows (hereinafter referred to as “each decision to disclose each of these decisions on March 20, 2018”):

0 The Administrator of the defendant branch office

A person shall be appointed.

The Administrator of this Ministry of Justice

A person shall be appointed.

2) The reasons revealed in the decision of disclosure by the Administrator of the Defendant Gyeonggi-gu Office are as follows, and the Administrator of the Defendant Pyeongtaek-gu Housing Site was based on the "decision of disclosure" in accordance with the internal guidelines and internal guidelines.

A person shall be appointed.

(d) Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal and ruling on partial acceptance of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission;

On April 2, 2018, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with each decision of disclosure made on March 3, 2018, and filed an administrative appeal on April 2, 2018, and the Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling to partially accept the Plaintiffs’ claims on July 27, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “instant ruling”). The content of the ruling is classified as shown in the measurement report in attached Table 2 paragraph (1) and cancels the part of the decision to disclose each information listed in paragraph (2) of the same Table. The content of each decision made on March 20, 2018 is as follows.

E. Relevant statutes

The main statutes related to the instant case are as listed in the attached Form 3-related statutes.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3's evidence 1 to 4, 2-1 to 3, 24-1, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, and 3's evidence 1-1, 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

In each decision of this case, the part ordering the disclosure of the "department or fair name of the item" or "unit work place" of the measurement report according to the results of the measurement 3. The part ordering the disclosure of relevant information should be cancelled as it is illegal due to the procedural and substantive defects (as above, the plaintiff's specific information should be referred to as "indemnite information").

A. Each of the Defendants’ decisions on March 20, 2018 on each of the procedural defects F’s respective claims were determined on April 19, 2019, before the date of disclosure thereof 30 days from the date of the decision, and thus, the Defendants violated Article 21(3) of the Information Disclosure Act.

(b) substantial defects;

1) Information related to the layout (out/facility/person placement level) of each plant of this case is the core of the semiconductor process, which is a huge research and development and investment product. Competition enterprises can improve productivity by using it, and constitutes a major business and trade secret as it can be utilized for the establishment of a production plan and marketing by analogy of how the Plaintiff produces certain products at a certain plant. However, if an expert engaged in semiconductor field is an expert, he/she may gather information about the department and name of the measurement report, unit work place, etc. of the factory by combining the information about the lay-outout process of the factory. Accordingly, the key information constitutes business and trade secret, and the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy (hereinafter referred to as the "Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy") also determined it as national core technology. The key information is the Plaintiff's business secret and need not be disclosed to the public in order to protect human life, body, or health, each of the decision of this case should be revoked.

2) The decision of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, which did not revoke the disclosure of key information in the instant decision, is based on the mistake of a person in charge and omitted from the date of revocation. In other words, the above decision contains the section of "department or process name", "unit work place", "chemical name (product name)", "fair process", etc. that may seriously harm the plaintiff's legitimate interests due to such disclosure, and cancellation of each decision of March 20, 2018, which ordered the disclosure among the respective disclosure decisions of March 20, 2018, on the ground that such disclosure does not constitute information necessary for the protection of people's life, body, or health from harm caused by business activities. However, the above decision contains the section of "general opinion based on the measurement results" as well as the section of "general opinion based on the measurement results" and the unit work site, but is erroneous.

In light of the content and purport of the instant ruling, as long as the internal intent of the administrative agency is confirmed that the key information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure, the part ordering the disclosure of key information among each of the instant rulings shall be revoked by the binding force of each of the instant rulings.

3. Determination on the legality of the disposition

A. Judgment on procedural defects

1) The Defendants violated Article 21(3) of the Information Disclosure Act, which stipulates that the disclosure date shall be set on April 19, 2019 and set at an interval of 29 days between the date of the disclosure decision and the date of the disclosure, on March 20, 2018 as to the F’s respective requests for information disclosure. As such, the Defendants violated Article 21(3) of the Information Disclosure Act, which stipulates that at least 30 days be set at intervals.

The head of the defendant Gyeonggi District Office asserts that March 19, 2018, which approved the final decision on whether to disclose information according to the decision of March 16, 2018 by the Information Disclosure Council, was the date of the decision on disclosure of information, and that the date of the decision on disclosure of information should be March 19, 2018, the date of the decision on disclosure of information should be deemed to be March 19, 2018, which was held by the Deliberation Council which decided on whether to disclose information, and therefore, at the intervals of 30 days pursuant to Article 21(3) of the Information Disclosure Act. However, the date of the decision on disclosure under Article 21(3) of the Information Disclosure Act is not the date of internal approval or the date of the decision on disclosure of information is held by an administrative agency, but it is clear

2) However, the above procedural illegality should be deemed to have been cured.

The purpose of Article 21 (3) of the Information Disclosure Act is to ensure that Article 21 (3) of the Information Disclosure Act provides that a third party related to the information requested to be disclosed may be allowed to decide whether to object to the disclosure decision and the time to prepare such decision.

However, according to the aforementioned facts and facts in this court, and facts without dispute, the Defendants had a 30-day interval between the date of the initial decision on disclosure and the date of disclosure, and the date of disclosure upon F’s request thereafter, changed to April 20, 2018, and eventually 30-day intervals. Furthermore, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 30, 2018, which was ten days from the date of the decision, and filed an application for suspension of the execution of the F’s respective requests for disclosure of information, and filed an application for suspension of the execution on March 20, 2018.

If so, the illegality of the above procedure was insignificant from the beginning to the minor extent, and the interval between the periods prescribed by the law, and as long as the plaintiff took an effective appeal procedure against the defendants' disclosure decision at the time when the plaintiff had sufficient time until the date of disclosure, it is reasonable to view that the illegality of the above procedure was cured.

3) On March 20, 2018, each of the F’s respective requests for disclosure of information was cured of the procedural defect in violation of Article 21(3) of the Information Disclosure Act. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion disputing the illegality of the procedure is rejected.

B. Determination of substantial defects: Whether information on key issues is subject to non-disclosure

The above facts are examined based on facts not disputed, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 17, and 18, the result of non-disclosure and examination by this court, and the purport of all pleadings.

1) The term “business secrets of corporations, etc.” under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act refers to all information pertaining to business activities that are advantageous to the disclosure of others, or all confidential information pertaining to business activities. Whether to disclose such information ought to be determined depending on whether there is a legitimate interest to refuse disclosure. In addition, the determination of whether there is a legitimate interest should be made by comprehensively taking into account the legislative intent of the former Information Disclosure Act aimed at guaranteeing citizens’ right to know and securing citizens’ participation in state affairs and transparency in state affairs, the nature of the relevant corporations, etc., rights of the relevant corporations, competitive status, etc., and the need to protect the rights of the relevant corporations, etc., the need to protect their rights, etc., and the relationship with the relevant corporations, etc., in light of the nature of the relevant corporation, etc., the details and nature of the benefits that should be protected, such as the relevant corporation’s rights and competitive status, etc., and the relevant information’s content and nature

2) The key issue information is the Plaintiff’s business and trade secret, and it is reasonable to regard it as information that may seriously harm the Plaintiff’s legitimate interest if disclosed. Since it is not deemed necessary to disclose the information to protect the life, body, or health of a person from risks arising from the Plaintiff’s business activities, it constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act. The reasons are as follows.

A) Prior to the manufacture of semiconductors, the prior process consists of (1) diffusion, (2) photograph, decoration, (4), ionion, (5), stop, (6), (7), flating, and (8) metal distribution lines. The prior process is comprised of eight processes: (1) distribution, (2) distribution, (3) distribution, (4) distribution, and (7) distribution, (40 to 500-, and (3) distribution, and the distance from the automatic return equipment reaches several km; (2) distribution, depending on how to place each process, the distance and efficiency are changed, and (3) production costs are considerably different. The Plaintiff’s optimal arrangement of each of the instant factories based on information on research and development, and investment.

B) The Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology provides that the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry shall designate technologies having high technological and economic value in the domestic and overseas markets or having high growth potential of the related industries as national core technology in the event that industrial technology is leaked abroad (Article 9). The Act provides that the head of an agency retaining and managing national core technology shall take protective measures (Article 10). In order to export national core technology, the Act provides for approval of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry or a report to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry (Article 11).

On April 23, 2018, after deliberation by the Special Committee, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry determined that the location map, department/fair name, unit work place, chemical name (name of commodity), and monthly handling quantity of each of the factories of this case constitute national core technology among the contents stated in each measurement report in the year 2009 to 2017.

(No. 18), in particular, the name of department/fair, and the content of unit workplace by combining the contents of the unit workplace, obtained information similar to the measurement location by analogying the fair lay-out measurement, thereby making it available for the following enterprises, etc. to improve productivity, and specifically indicate that the key part of the information falls under national core technology.

The judgment on the value of industrial technology and the impact of the divulgence thereof requires high level of expertise, and the professional judgment made by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy in accordance with the above relevant Acts and subordinate statutes should be respected unless there are special circumstances.

The defendants asserted that the above determination was made after each of the above decisions was made after each of the above decisions was lawful. However, the above determination by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy is merely a decision on the existing factual relations pertaining to the issues information, not the new fact-finding change, and it is not reasonable in that the above determination by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy is just a decision on the existing factual relations pertaining to the issues information.

C) Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s report on the first half-yearly measurement in 2012, and the measurement report in 2012-2014 from 2014 from 1 to 2014 from 2014 of the Gisung Factory was in practice, and the Plaintiff’s combination of “department and fair name” and “day 2” information, which intermediate the harmful factors generated in each process, can be inferred about the information in the process. In particular, the Plaintiff’s analysis of the measurement report by the values, specifically explained that the information can be obtained to a considerable extent, and this is supported by the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry’s aforementioned determination.

The Defendants asserted that the number of cases in which the Defendants can be presented regarding the arrangement of a fair is too large, and that the detailed arrangement of each of the instant factories is changed depending on the passage of time, and thus, it is more so-called. However, the Defendants asserted to the purport that the arrangement of a fair is unable to be made, and that it is not possible to specify any of the factories with the key information. However, the Defendants’ aforementioned rebuttals against the premise that the Defendants are able to specify a factory in particular, from the perspective of ordinary people who have no knowledge and experience in semiconductor process, and thus, the aforementioned determination on the availability of the competitors in relation to the key information cannot be seen differently.

D) If so, the issue information is about the plaintiff's management and business secrets, and if disclosed, it is likely to seriously harm the plaintiff's interests due to the use by the competitor.

E) On the other hand, the interest arising from the disclosure of the key information compared thereto is examined. The purpose of the Information Disclosure Act is to guarantee the citizen's right to know, to ensure the citizen's participation in state affairs, and to ensure the transparency of state administration.

However, among the content of measurement reports, the Plaintiff also acknowledges that the content of "harmful factors" and "measurement values," which are directly related to the life, body, or health of workers working in each plant of this case, are subject to disclosure. As a result of the working environment measurement of each plant of this case, the level of exposure to harmful factors was less than the standard of statutory exposure.

In addition, pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Minister of Employment and Labor may keep and utilize the entire measurement report containing the above parts, as well as the employees of each of the factories of this case can also be confirmed. In cases where the measurement report has a specific interest in the disclosure of the above parts of the measurement report due to filing a lawsuit related to harmful substances in each of the factories of this case, the said report may be submitted

In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to say that the general public’s right to know the departments and names of departments and places of unit work, which are very detailed information related to semiconductor process conducted in each plant of this case, is superior to the Plaintiff’s interest, which is a profit-making corporation to be protected in relation to the competitor company, as seen earlier. It is more so considering that according to the decision of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, if the key information is leaked, not only the Plaintiff’s interest but also the national economy is likely

F) The Defendants asserted that the information at issue constitutes “information that needs to be disclosed to protect people’s lives, bodies or health from danger caused by business activities” under Article 9(1)7(a) of the Information Disclosure Act, but in light of the overall circumstances as seen above, it is difficult to say that there is a need for the department and process of the measurement report and the part concerning the unit work place to be disclosed to the general public for the purpose of protecting the lives, bodies or health of workers working in each of the instant factories in order to protect their lives, bodies or health. The key information is that it does not fall under the foregoing item (a).

3) Meanwhile, even if the key information falls under the information subject to non-disclosure, the Defendants asserts that the disclosure decision on the portion on which the specific days are recorded can only be revoked by separating the matters on which the specific days are indicated.

According to Article 14 of the Information Disclosure Act, where the information subject to non-disclosure is mixed with the information requested to be disclosed, and the two parts can be separated within the scope not inconsistent with the purport of the request for disclosure, the part corresponding to the information subject to non-disclosure shall be excluded. However, as seen earlier, the division and name of the department, the unit work place and the unit work place constitute the information subject to non-disclosure by constituting a business and trade secret which could seriously harm the legitimate interests of the plaintiff if disclosed by combining with the contents on the day, and it is difficult to regard the remainder as the information that can be disclosed by separating only the part on the day. Also, considering the above-mentioned circumstances in Article 14(e) of the Information Disclosure Act, even if the record on the day is separated, it does not seem that the rest of the department, the name of the process, and the unit work place need to

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants cannot be accepted.

4) Ultimately, the key issue information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act, and thus, the part ordering the disclosure of each of the instant decisions should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

4. Conclusion

Of the respective decisions of the Defendants, the part ordering the disclosure of key information among the decision of this case must be revoked as it is unlawful. Each claim against the Defendants against the Defendants is justified within the above scope, and thus, the remainder is dismissed.

For the establishment of judges:

Judges Kang Jin-jin

2) In semiconductor process, a space for processing wafers, which are the base boards of semiconductors, is a zone designated by classifying them by process, and a space between workmen, on which manufacturing facilities are displayed on a one-way basis.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.