Seoul Administrative Court 2008Guhap20925 ( August 26, 2008)

The legitimacy of the assertion that the lease contract submitted by a corporation to the tax office shall be disclosed in accordance with the Information Disclosure Request Act after its business is registered.

Since a corporation's lease contract prepared on the part of a building in relation to its business activities is related to the business secrets of the corporation, it is likely to harm legitimate interests of the corporation if disclosed, and the reasons asserted by the plaintiff are merely a civil dispute over the legal relationship

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's refusal to disclose information against the plaintiff on April 17, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Acceptance of a judgment of the court of first instance;

The reason for the submission of this Court to this case is the same as the entry in the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance except for adding the following judgments to the note in the judgment of the plaintiff at the party, so it is subject to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional parts; and

A. The information of this case does not correspond to the matters pertaining to the management and trade secrets set forth in Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act, but is likely to significantly undermine the legitimate interests of ○○○○○○○○○○, even if the information was disclosed as well as the matters pertaining to the management and trade secrets. Since the part of the building of this case is prohibited from being used under the Building Act and the provisional disposition registration of the Plaintiff’s application and the ownership transfer registration of the Plaintiff’s name cannot be leased without the Plaintiff’s approval, the information of this case, which is entered into in the lease contract of the above part, shall be deemed to fall under the information that needs to be disclosed in order to protect the people’s property or life from the unlawful and unfair activities set forth in subparagraph (b) of the same Article.

B. However, since the instant information is a lease contract that is a corporate ○ Plus written on the instant building part relating to its business activities, it constitutes information that is deemed likely to seriously harm the legitimate interests of ○ Plus if disclosed, as matters pertaining to the management and trade secrets of a corporation under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act. The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff are merely a dispute between the Plaintiff and ○ Plus on the civil legal relationship concerning the instant part of the instant building between the Plaintiff and ○ Plus. It is difficult to deem that ○ Plus is necessary to disclose the instant information in order to engage in illegal and unfair business activities or to protect the people’s property or life. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion cannot be accepted.

Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and it is judged the same as the order to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal.