1. On January 21, 2016, the information listed in [Attachment 1] 1 and 3 among the dispositions rejecting the disclosure of information made by the Defendant against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 12, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of each information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant information”).

B. The Defendant sought the Defendant’s opinion on the disclosure of the instant information to the Rodrid Korea Limited Liability Company (hereinafter “Rodrid”) that had filed an application for the permission for items related to the instant drug and the registration of the said drug, which is included in the instant information claimed by the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Rodrid was about its management and trade secrets. The Rodrid requested the Defendant to disclose the instant information on the ground that the Rodrid was about its management and trade secrets.

C. On January 21, 2016, the Defendant issued a non-disclosure disposition of the instant information (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that “the person who submitted the data pursuant to Article 88 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act requested the protection of the instant information, and the instant information constitutes matters concerning corporate management and trade secrets under Article 9(1)7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) and it is difficult to recognize that the disclosure of the data is necessary for public interest.”

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On the grounds delineated below the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant information does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 88 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act, but on the other hand, the instant disposition that non-disclosure of the instant information should be revoked as it is unlawful.

1. Where a person who has submitted data submitted under Article 31, 31-2, or 42 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act requests in writing that such data be protected, the data shall be submitted in accordance with Article 88 (1) of the same Act.