1. On November 6, 2018, the Defendant’s refusal to disclose information on the information listed in the separate sheet against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a certified labor affairs consultant affiliated with the labor law firm D, delegated by B to B for the case of unfair dismissal and application for remedy against unfair labor practices filed by B against a limited company C (hereinafter “foreign company”).

B. On January 9, 2018, in the instant case, the dismissal disposition against Nonparty Company B was recognized as unfair dismissal on the ground that the determination was excessive compared to the grounds for the disciplinary action, and accordingly, the Defendant notified Nonparty Company that it would pay the amount of wages during the period of original reinstatement and dismissal.

C. On April 18, 2018, the Defendant confirmed that the non-party company performed the above order of remedy based on the information stated in the separate sheet submitted by the non-party company (hereinafter “instant information”) and the separate sheet data.

On the other hand, on October 12, 2018, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose the instant information to the public.

E. Accordingly, around November 6, 2018, the Defendant did not disclose the instant information on the grounds that the disclosure of the information constitutes a matter of personal information, such as name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information, which is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of private life if disclosed) under Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) and Article 9(1)7 of the same Act (where disclosed, information pertaining to corporate management and trade secrets, which is likely to seriously undermine the legitimate interests of the corporation).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The Disposition in this case is without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The non-party company asserted that the plaintiff did not properly implement the order for remedy, submitted the information of this case to the defendant. Based on this, the non-party company presented the information of this case to the defendant.