(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.6.17. 선고 2013누25230 판결

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant regarding “additional closed part” in the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information as to the Plaintiff on September 10, 2012, which the Defendant rendered on September 10, 2012, shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to

2. The defendant's remaining appeals and the plaintiff's incidental appeals are all dismissed.

3. One-third of the total costs of the litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and two-thirds by the Defendant, respectively.

Purport of claim and incidental appeal, and purport of incidental appeal

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s refusal to disclose information on September 10, 2012 to the Plaintiff on September 10, 2012 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The "nonpublic part" of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information as to the entry in the attached list of claims for disclosure of information, which the defendant rendered to the plaintiff on September 10, 2012 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court’s decision, in addition to the second instance judgment, as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

○ The last 6 lines of the judgment of the court of first instance are referred to as “the last 6 lines” below.

○ The fourth decision of the first instance court is 20 to 21, and the fifth one to 10 lines are as follows.

(2) (2) According to the result of the non-disclosure inspection of the data listed in the separate sheet of the information disclosure claim filed by this court, the "non-disclosure part" and "additional non-disclosure part" in the separate sheet of the information disclosure claim are related to the domestic industry prospects, the relevant industry's competitiveness comparison, the analysis to the extent that the Korea-China FTA affects the domestic industry according to the conditions given by scenarios according to the relevant domestic industry, the negotiation strategies in Korea, etc. In this case, if such information is exposed to China, which is the other party to the negotiation, it is highly likely that the Korean negotiating power would be weak if it becomes impossible for Korea to negotiate the best, and due to such weakening of negotiating power, Korea will suffer enormous disadvantage that it would be difficult for Korea to see in trade in Korea, and the above non-disclosure part and additional non-disclosure part other than currently analysis of the current status of the economic power of China, China, and Japan, and there is no possibility that the remainder of the "non-disclosure part" and the additional non-disclosure part in the separate list of information disclosure claims will be significantly harmed.

(3) Therefore, the remainder of the instant disposition, excluding the aforementioned nonpublic part and the additional nonpublic part, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance, which concluded differently that the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed for the reason for the reason for the above recognition. Therefore, the part against the defendant as to the above "Additional non-disclosure" part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancellation part shall be dismissed, and all remaining appeal of the defendant and incidental appeal of