Economic Reform Co., Ltd and one other (Attorney Kim Young-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Chairman of the Financial Services Commission and 1

September 2, 2009

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2007Guhap35166 Decided January 14, 2009

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The Defendants’ refusal to disclose information on July 18, 2007 to the Plaintiffs is revoked.

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above cancellation portion shall be revoked and the court of first instance dismissed [the court of first instance rejected the plaintiffs' claims as to the information listed in Section 1(1)(a) through (6) of Attached Table 1, 1(b)(2)(b) through (6), 3(b) information described in Attached Table 1(1)(a) through (14, 1(b)(1) information, 2(b)(1) information, 3(a)(1) through (11), 3(b)(1) information, 3(1)(a) through (11), 2(b) information, 1(1) information described in Attached Table 1(2)(a)(2)(2)(a) and 2(2), and the defendants' claims as to the information described in Attached Table 1(2)(b)(2)(2) shall be limited to the plaintiffs' claims for appeal to this Court.

1. The reasoning presented by the court in this decision is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following additional parts, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. The Defendants asserted that the disclosure of No. 3 information would seriously interfere with the fair performance of their duties, as the disclosure of such information would result in a serious obstacle to the issuance of the information. In other words, with respect to the approval of Lone Star’s holding in excess of the aforementioned stockholding limit at the time of the instant disposition, the Board of Audit and Inspection announced the audit results of Lone Star’s acquisition of foreign exchange bank on June 19, 2006, and the so-called “the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Da1352, etc.”), the aforementioned criminal cases related to Lone Star’s sale of Lone Star’s stocks (Seoul District Court 2006Da1352, etc.) were under way. Accordingly, the Defendants’ review of ex officio revocation after reporting the final judgment of the judiciary on the above criminal procedure and examining ex officio revocation, the Defendants asserted that the disclosure of information constitutes an ex officio revocation under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, and whether the approval of the Korea Exchange Bank’s ex officio approval was necessary under Article 87(305).

In light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 11 and Eul evidence No. 5, it is recognized that the audit results of the Board of Audit and Inspection and whether Lone Star is a non-financial business operator or not in the above criminal proceedings are not major issues. Thus, even if the Defendants reviewed ex officio revocation by examining the determination results of the above agencies, the facts subject to the review are the issues of whether the excess holding limit by the same person following LSF-Case's acquisition of stocks of Lone Star's subsidiary company in the foreign exchange bank against LSF Holdings, which is Lone Star's subsidiary company, was made through LSF-Case's deception and the application by non-party No. 2's breach of trust, etc., so it is difficult to view that the disclosure of information affects the review of the ex officio revocation by the Defendants' assertion. The Defendants did not argue that Lone Star is a non-financial business operator in the first instance trial, and there is no doubt as to whether it is a non-financial business operator or not.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

B. The Defendants asserted that, with respect to information 5 pertaining to an application for approval of excess stock holding limit by one person following the acquisition of stocks of one bank for securities held in accordance with § 2222, the Korea Financial Services Commission of Singapore requests non-disclosure of the content of its asset management as a state-owned investment company of Singapore. The Defendants asserted that, even if a third party, who is the subject of the information, requests non-disclosure, the disclosure of information would not guarantee the smooth performance of the financial supervisory business of the Defendants in the future, and thus, disclosure may not be made pursuant to Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act.

Relevant statutes and regulations, such as the Banking Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, shall give the Defendants the authority to collect data necessary for the Defendants to properly perform their financial supervisory duties, and, in the event of refusal, the Defendants shall have the authority and duties to impose penalty surcharges, etc. or refuse approval related thereto, and the Defendants shall have the authority and duties to perform their duties in accordance with the relevant statutes and regulations. Thus, the Defendants shall not accept the assertion that, even if a third party, who is the subject of the relevant information, requests non-disclosure to the public, if disclosed, it shall not be ensured

In addition, Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "Any information held and managed by a public institution shall be subject to disclosure: Provided, That it may not be disclosed with respect to the information falling under any of the following subparagraphs." In light of the legislative purport of the Information Disclosure Act and the form of the above provision, "information held and managed by a public institution" refers to not only the information prepared and kept by the public institution in question but also all the information held and managed by the public institution in question regardless of its circumstances. Thus, even if it is related to a third party, if it is held and managed by the public institution in question, it shall be deemed that the information is subject to disclosure unless it falls under the grounds for non-disclosure under the proviso of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act. Thus, Article 11(3) of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "if all or part of the information requested for disclosure is deemed related to a third party, the public institution shall be notified without delay to the third party, and if necessary, it shall not be deemed that the public institution is related to the third party and the public institution in question is not related to the third party."

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

2. If so, the plaintiffs' claims are justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and all appeals by the defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Jae-hoon (Presiding Judge)