The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment to this court as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendant’s additional decision in this Court asserts, as the grounds for appeal, that “each information of this case is cited prior to each information of this case, as cited in the separate sheet.” The information listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the information listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and the information listed in the separate sheet No. 3, the information listed in the separate sheet No. 3, refers to the information listed in Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, and the information listed in the separate sheet No. 3, the information is deemed information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act, and the third information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)8 of the Information Disclosure Act.”

The above argument by the Defendant at this court is not different from the content of the Defendant’s assertion in the first instance court. The evidence submitted by the first instance court is justified in the judgment of the court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the same grounds as the above, according to the result of the

(In particular, in order to recognize that the above information falls under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Information Disclosure Act with respect to the third information, it is insufficient to simply establish a non-disclosure agreement between the defendant and the hospital of this case. It is also sufficient to prove that the above information is likely to seriously harm the legitimate interest of the hospital of this case if it is disclosed as a corporate management and trade secret. However, the defendant did not provide a substantial proof to this part until the trial.).

In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance, which received the plaintiff's claim, is just, and the defendant is just.