1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant's refusal to disclose information to the plaintiff on May 9, 2013.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following to the third and seventh of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A person shall be appointed.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant added Article 18(2) of the Attorney Examination Act to the grounds for disposition, stating that the minutes and meeting materials of the instant case constitute “information that may substantially interfere with the fair performance of the test business if disclosed.”

A person shall be appointed.

2. The reasons why the plaintiff's assertion in this part is stated are as follows: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited, except for adding "Article 9 (1) 5 of the former Information Disclosure Act" to "Article 9 (2) 5 of the former Information Disclosure Act" under the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

3. As to this part of the disposition of this case’s lawfulness, this court’s explanation is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal of some contents as follows. As such, this Court’s explanation is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following shall be added to "the same as the statement in the meeting data of the Attorney Examination and Management Committee" in attached Form 1:

B. (1) The operation rules of the commission of the instant case provide that “(1) whether or not the operation rules of the commission of the instant case serve as the basis for non-disclosure of information” (hereinafter referred to as “(1) whether or not the operation rules of the commission of the instant case serve as the basis for non-disclosure of information, and whether or not the grounds for additional disposition under Article 18(2) of the Attorney Examination Act

(c)Paragraph 6, 13, the following is added:

Next, the defendant asserts as a ground for disposition when it comes to the trial.