1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the information listed in No. 8 of the separate sheet of disclosure request shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s July 2012

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 5, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of each information listed in the separate sheet relating to the “Agreement on the Protection of Confidential Information between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of Japan” (hereinafter “the instant agreement”). On July 10, 2012, the Defendant made a non-disclosure decision on the following grounds: (a) partial disclosure of each information listed in the separate sheet No. 9 and No. 10; and (b) the remainder of the information on the grounds of Article 9(1)2 and 5 of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (Amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “former Information Disclosure Act”).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

On July 10, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant. On August 13, 2012, the Defendant disclosed the remainder of the information recorded in the list No. 10 of the request for disclosure of the attached Form No. 10, and on the grounds that the information recorded in the list No. 8 of the request for disclosure of the attached Form was nonexistent, the Plaintiff rendered a decision not to disclose the remainder of information

Accordingly, on November 11, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on June 18, 2013.

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-4 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On July 10, 2012, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision as to the information listed in the list No. 8 of the [Attachment No. 1] of the Plaintiff’s claim for disclosure on July 10, 2012 on the ground that Article 9(1)2 and 5 of the former Information Disclosure Act was non-existence of the Plaintiff’s objection. In light of the comments made by the U.S. President of the State Department on June 2012 and the press report related to the joint name of the Korea-U.S. Diplomatic and Defense Council, the written objection is made between Korea and U.S. in relation to the instant agreement.