1. On October 7, 2013, the Defendant’s information on the “Nonpublic Information List” listed in attached Table 1, as against the Plaintiff on October 7, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Gangnam-gu Seoul, C ground D buildings, E ground F buildings, and H buildings on the same Gu G ground.

B. On February 28, 2006, the Plaintiff obtained a construction permit for the said D building from the Defendant and obtained approval for the use of the said building on February 28, 2007, and on March 6, 2009. On April 21, 2006, upon obtaining a construction permit for the F building on April 26, 2006, the Plaintiff obtained approval for the use of the said building on April 25, 2007, and obtained a construction permit for the H building on July 11, 2006, and obtained the construction permit for the said building on July 4, 2008.

C. Meanwhile, on January 24, 2013, the Plaintiff was indicted for violating the Building Act as to the said three buildings, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 10,00,000 by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Da3135, Jan. 24, 2013; the Plaintiff and the Prosecutor appealed and sentenced the Defendant and the Prosecutor to a suspended sentence of KRW 2 years and a fine of KRW 5,00,000 for imprisonment in August 23, 2013; and the Plaintiff filed an appeal and continues to file a lawsuit with Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1043 as of the date of closing argument.

On September 25, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose the information on the documents listed in the attached Table 3 list because related data are necessary in the trial of the instant building violation case. However, on October 7, 2013, the Defendant disclosed only the corrective instruction and the official document imposing enforcement fines on the said three buildings, and made a non-disclosure decision on the documents listed in the attached Table 2 list on the grounds that there was no information.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition.” Since then, the Defendant, in the course of the instant lawsuit, revealed that some of the documents exist, and disclosed the documents to the public as specified in attached Table 1, is identical to the list of nonpublic information.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 4 through 12, Eul's 3 (including the number of branches), and the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion (i) summary of the plaintiff's assertion shall be the original copy of the attached list 1 to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office.