1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is one of the parties.

1. In the first instance court, on January 13, 2016, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the decision on non-disclosure of the information listed in attached Form 1(1) among the decision on disclosure of the part of a request for disclosure of information to the Plaintiff, and also sought a decision ordering the Defendant to disclose the information requested by the Plaintiff. The first instance court dismissed the lawsuit seeking information disclosure, and accepted the claim for revocation of the decision on non-disclosure of information listed in attached Form 1(1).

Accordingly, since only the defendant appealed against the defendant falling under the part of the judgment of the court of first instance ordering the revocation of the non-disclosure decision regarding the information in attached Form 1(1), the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for revocation of the non-disclosure decision as to the information in attached Form 1

2. Details of the disposition;

A. In accordance with the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”), the Defendant entered into a contract for entrustment with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) on the operation of the E-sports Center within the headquarters through competitive bidding.

The plaintiff is the head of the Gyeonggi-do branch site of the public non-regular labor union (hereinafter referred to as the "trade union") in which non-regular workers, such as C's U.S. dollars, receiving personnel, and sports instructors, join

B. On January 6, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose each information listed in attached Table 1 to the public.

C. On January 13, 2016, the Defendant disclosed to the Plaintiff each information listed in attached Forms 1, 1, 2, and 1, 2016, and on the information listed in attached Form 1(1) (hereinafter “instant information”), it is anticipated that it would hinder the fair performance of duties due to the likelihood of impeding the fair performance of duties, as it would serve as evidence for estimating costs at the time of bidding for the next service in 2017.

Information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 5.

"......"