1. The Defendant’s decision to disclose information to the Plaintiff on August 7, 2015 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 13, 2012, the Seoul Southern District Court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (a) 156 workers employed by both companies including the Plaintiff (hereinafter “ Both companies”) filed a lawsuit, such as nullification of dismissal, against both companies; and (b) the Seoul Southern District Court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff

The Seoul High Court, etc. appealed against the first instance judgment, and the Seoul High Court revoked the first instance judgment on February 7, 2014 and sentenced the plaintiff's winning judgment.

The Supreme Court rendered a final appeal against the appellate judgment on November 13, 2014.

The above civil case is continuing to be in Seoul High Court 2014Na56869 after remand.

(hereinafter “Related Civil Procedure”. Meanwhile, on February 19, 2014, the Financial Supervisory Service drafted a document stating “the analysis and review of the contents of the judgment related to the second instance court’s judgment regarding the invalidation lawsuit against dismissal of a two-motor vehicle company” (hereinafter “instant information”).

B. On July 29, 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose the instant information.

On August 7, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to disclose the instant information to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 9(1)4, 5, and 7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) on the grounds that the instant information is included in the information related to a trial currently in progress, which would affect the deliberation of the trial or the outcome of the trial if disclosed, and (2) disclosure as a supervisory report may seriously interfere with the fair performance of supervisory duties by the Financial Supervisory Service.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Article 9 (Information Subject to Non-Disclosure) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act shall be subject to disclosure.