(영문) 수원고등법원 2020.5.13.선고 2019누12773 판결

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is borne by the Defendants, and the part arising from the intervention is borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

The decision on partial disclosure of each information listed in attached Table 1 List 1 that the head of the Gyeonggi-do Office for Employment and Labor by the defendant Jung-gu Office on March 20, 2018 to the plaintiff on March 20, 2018 and the head of the Bupyeong-gu Office for Employment and Labor by the defendant Jung-gu Office for Employment and Labor shall revoke the decision on March 20, 2018 to disclose the information listed in paragraph

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and all of the claims against the Defendants corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Reasons for the disposition and the plaintiff's assertion;

The reasoning for this part is as follows, except as follows, the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 1 to 7 lines) is the same. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The portions from 4 up to 3 lines under the bottom of 5 shall be deleted and the following shall be added:

On October 10, 2018, the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Administrative Court against the Central Administrative Appeals Commission to revoke the part of the Defendant’s revocation of the non-disclosure decision in the attached Table 2 from among the measurement report of 2011 to 2013, and the measurement report of 2010 to 2015, on which the Plaintiff participated in the Central Administrative Appeals Commission (Seoul Administrative Court 2018Guhap80698). On February 19, 2020, the above court rejected the Intervenor’s claim on the grounds that the information for which the disclosure decision was revoked by the Central Administrative Appeals Commission was subject to non-disclosure under the main sentence of Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act, and that it is insufficient to acknowledge that the information falls under the information subject to disclosure under the proviso of subparagraph (a) of the same subparagraph. The Intervenor’s claim was rejected from the Seoul High Court 200 to 207Nu375206.

2. Related statutes;

Attached Form 3 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

3. Determination on the assertion of procedural defect

A. Article 21(3) of the Information Disclosure Act provides that a third party who has been notified of the fact that a request for disclosure has been made pursuant to Article 11(3) may request the relevant public institution not to disclose his/her relevant information within three days from the date of receipt of the notification thereof (Article 11(1)). Notwithstanding the public institution’s request, if the public institution makes a decision on disclosure, it shall notify the public institution in writing without delay, specifying the reasons for the decision on disclosure and the date on which the disclosure is made, and the third party may file an objection in writing or file an administrative appeal or administrative litigation (Article 21(2)) within seven days from the date on which the public institution is notified of the decision on disclosure and the date on which the disclosure is made (Article 21(3)). The purport that Article 21(3) of the Information Disclosure Act provides that a third party related to the information claimed shall be at least at least 30 days prior to the date of the decision on disclosure and the date on

B. As seen in the above disposition, the Defendants violated Article 21(3) of the Information Disclosure Act on the F’s measurement report of the 2010-2014-201 and the measurement report of the 2017-20-2017-200-200-100-100-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-000-00-00-00-00-00-000-00-000-000-00-000-00-00-00

In this regard, the head of the defendant Gyeonggi Branch asserts that March 19, 2018, which finally approved the disclosure of information, should be deemed the date of decision on the disclosure of information, and that the deliberation council which decided whether to disclose information should be deemed March 19, 2018 to be the date of decision on the disclosure of information.

Generally, an administrative disposition may exist in a case where the internal requirements for the establishment of the administrative disposition, such as the subject, content, and procedure, and the external requirements for the establishment of the external establishment of the administrative disposition, are met. The external establishment of the administrative disposition refers to the time when the administrative agency becomes bound by the administrative agency to freely revoke and withdraw, by indicating the external intent of the administration. Thus, the external establishment of a certain disposition shall be determined on the basis of whether the administrative agency has expressed its external intent in an official manner (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Du35120, Jul. 11, 2017).

According to the above legal principle, the date of disclosure decision under Article 21 (3) of the Information Disclosure Act is not the date on which the administrative agency approved internal approval or the Information Disclosure Council was held, but it is deemed the date on which the decision satisfies external requirements for establishment by indicating it externally by official method.

The Defendants’ assertion on the premise different from the foregoing cannot be accepted. However, the Defendants were at a 29-day interval between the initial decision on disclosure and the date of disclosure. After that, both the date of disclosure were changed to April 20, 2018, which eventually led to a 30-day interval. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 30, 2018, which was ten (10) days after the date of the partial disclosure decision, and the Plaintiff filed an application for suspension of execution against the disclosure decision on March 20, 2018, and all of the applications were accepted in this court. The outcome of defective administrative acts cannot be allowed in principle from the perspective of the nature of administrative act or the rule of law. In light of the nature of the administrative act or the rule of law, it is reasonable to allow the Plaintiff to consistently recognize the procedure of disclosure to the extent that it does not infringe upon citizens’ rights or interests (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du2579, Aug. 26, 2010).

The plaintiff's procedural defect argument is without merit.

4. Judgment on the substantive defect assertion

(a) Facts of recognition;

(i) working environment measurement and obligation to report the result thereof;

A) Article 2 Subparag. 5 of the former Industrial Safety and Health Act (amended by Act No. 1039, Jun. 4, 2010; hereinafter the same) defines that a business owner shall establish a measurement plan for working environment to ascertain the actual condition of working environment (Article 2 Subparag. 5) and collect, analyze, and evaluate samples of the relevant worker or workplace (Article 2 Subparag. 5). Article 93(1) and attached Table 11-4 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that a business owner of a workplace exposed to harmful factors subject to measurement of working environment under Article 93(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor, Jul. 12, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall report the results to the Minister of Employment and Labor (the same shall apply) after conducting a measurement of working environment from harmful factors, and shall submit the result to a measurement institution designated by the Minister of working environment (the Ministry of Labor).

B) When a business owner conducts a working environment measurement, he/she shall submit a report on the result of working environment measurement in attached Form 20 along with a report on the result of working environment measurement in attached Form 21 attached hereto to the head of the competent local employment and labor office within 30 days from the date the extraction of samples is completed pursuant to Article 93-3(1)3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Where a measurement institution has conducted a working environment measurement, it shall submit a report on the result of working environment measurement to the head of the local employment and labor office by electronic means within 30 days from the date the collection of samples is completed (Article 94(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Rule

2) The lapse of the Daejeon High Court Decision 2017Nu10874 decided February 1, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul High Court Decision 2017Nu10874 decided February 1, 201)

A) On October 6, 2014, I filed a request for disclosure of information on the results of working environment measurement of a solar plant with the head of the Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Office (hereinafter referred to as the "head of the Seoan District Office"). On October 30, 2014, the head of the Seoan District Office rendered a non-disclosure decision on October 30, 2014 on the ground that the results of the working environment measurement conducted by the head of the Seoan District Office constituted information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

B) On January 28, 2015, I filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the above disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. On October 20, 2015, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a partial ruling to accept the following information from among the report on the result of measuring the working environment in question:

In the report of the result of the work environment measurement subject to disclosure, the number of measurement processes, the number of hours exceeding the exposure standard (department), the improvement contents, 1. The measuring agency and exposure standard by harmful factor, and I. Pursuant to the result of a preliminary investigation, the actual distribution of harmful factors by work process and harmful factor in the work environment measurement result, work hours, measurement methods, anticipated samples, number of measurements, and II. The result of the work environment measurement by work environment measurement by unit work place (excluding noise) from the result of the work environment measurement by unit work place (excluding noise) to the workplace, the temperature and temperature of the workplace, the previous measurement date, work type and actual work hours, the time of occurrence of harmful factors, the time of measurement, the number of measurement, the measurement frequency, the measuring method, the measuring method, the result of the working environment measurement by unit work place (noise, noise, the degree of noise), the type and time of occurrence, the measuring time, the measuring frequency, the frequency of measurement, the exposure standard, the exposure standard, the exposure method, the exposure

C) On March 2, 2016, I filed a lawsuit with the Daejeon District Court seeking revocation of the non-disclosure decision on the remaining information except for the above information subject to disclosure ( Daejeon District Court 2016Guhap100927). On March 8, 2017, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the above claim on the ground that the remaining information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

D) Accordingly, I appealed to the Daejeon High Court on March 21, 2017 (Seoul High Court 2017Nu10874). The above court rendered a judgment to disclose all information excluding the personal name of the result of measuring harmful factors for each unit work site from February 1, 2018 to February 2014 among the result of measuring the working environment of the sun-sea factory from 2007 to 2014. The above judgment became final and conclusive as the lapse of the period of appeal on February 20, 2018.

3) The Seoul High Court Decision 2017Nu41988 decided October 13, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul High Court Decision 2017Nu41988) passed.

A) On April 10, 2015, J et al. filed a request for disclosure of information with the head of the Defendant Gyeonggi District Office for the following reasons: (i) the documents confirming the results of special supervision, such as the report on the special supervision of industrial safety, conducted with respect to the chemical factory in 2013; and (ii) the documents confirming the results of the diagnosis order, such as the comprehensive diagnosis report conducted with respect to each of the instant factories and greenhouse factories in 2013; and (iii) the head of the Defendant Gyeonggi District Office on May 4, 2015 (the special supervision report for the chemical factory in 2013) and some of the above

B) On August 6, 2015, J and five other filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the aforementioned non-disclosure decision with the Suwon District Court (U.S. District Court 2015Gudan32302). On March 15, 2017, the above court rendered a judgment citing part of the above claim to disclose the remaining information excluding some non-disclosure information.

C) Accordingly, J et al. appealed to the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2017Nu41988). On October 13, 2017, the said court rendered a judgment to disclose the remaining information except the following information subject to non-disclosure. The said judgment became final and conclusive on October 31, 2017 after the lapse of the appeal period.

Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act - Part 1 of the report on the results of special supervision of factories subject to non-disclosure (Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act) - Part 1 of the "name of inspector" (Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act) - (Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act - (Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act - Part 9(1)5 of the "name" among the report on the comprehensive diagnosis of factories subject to non-disclosure - Part 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act - Part 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act - the total flow of major process (Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act ) - the name and number of equipment (Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act - the Information Disclosure and Inspection Act 9-1 of the Information Disclosure and Inspection Act - Part 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure and Inspection Act - the Information Disclosure and Inspection Act 9-1-7(the Information Disclosure and Inspection Act 9-7 of Information Disclosure Act).

4) Amendment of the Ministry of Labor’s guidelines;

A) According to the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s Guidelines for the Processing of Requests for Information Disclosure on Safety and Health Data established on January 11, 2017, the Ministry of Employment and Labor actively disclosed information insofar as it does not fall under information subject to non-disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act, the chemical substance of each process, process and facility placement, number of workers, etc. among the working environment measurement report, constitutes information on business and trade secrets developed by the company in order to improve the quality or productivity of products, and if disclosure is deemed likely to seriously undermine legitimate interests, such as undermining the company’s competitiveness, it may be made confidential.

B) When the Daejeon High Court Decision (2017Nu10874) became final and conclusive, the Ministry of Employment and Labor revised the above guidelines on March 6, 2018 as follows.

Article 42 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Article 42 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act): The content of the report on the result of measuring a working environment for public disclosure in principle is to be disclosed except for personal information (the name of workers).

5) Determination of national core technology by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy with respect to the instant key information, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy”).

A) The technology that the Plaintiff applied to the products designed and manufactured in each of the instant factories is designated as national core technology by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy (Notice of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 2018-4), which is "a design, process, art for children, and third-class-level-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based

B) On March 26, 2018, pursuant to Article 9(6) of the Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology (hereinafter “Industrial Technology Protection Act”), the Plaintiff filed an application with the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry to determine whether the work environment measurement report from 2007 to 2017 of each of the instant factories and Onnuri factories constitutes national core technology. The Minister of Agriculture and Forestry determined that the measurement location map, department/fair name, unit work name, chemical name (name of goods), and monthly handling quantity of each of the instant factories, etc., prepared from 2009 to 2017, among the results of the work environment measurement report on each of the instant factories, etc., prepared from 209 to 2017, falls under the national core technology in the semiconductor sector. The detailed reasons for each item are as follows.

The location of measurement may obtain information on the allocation of the process and equipment through the process and the process of measuring lay-out ○ (Review) measurement. Accordingly, the following enterprises, etc. may obtain information on the allocation of the automatic return facilities throughout the lay-out lay-out labing process. Accordingly, the number of automatic return facilities moving from the wab to the wab by the wab in accordance with the method of fair distribution available for the improvement of productivity, such as the optimalization of the process and equipment, and the number of automatic return facilities moving from the wab by the wab, the number of automatic return facilities moving from the wab in accordance with the method of fair distribution, and the number of automatic return facilities moving from the wabbbus, the name of the department where the size of the place of business occurs, the process of unit work (Contents), the name of the unit work (content), the name of the lab, the name of the lab, and the type of chemicals used in the lab in the lab-out lab.

It can be inferred that the specialized process of new technology and new product can be inferred through monthly handling trends. K can be inferred by chemicals with 000 characteristics used in the PR process supplied by L company.* On the basis of the review of specific process applicable to new technology and new product and the level of possible results of the working environment measurement by comparing before and after the significant change time of the handling volume of chemicals, the following items of the results of the work environment measurement report shall be considered as national core technology.* ‘the results of the preliminary investigation in 1.1.'. ‘the process subject to measurement'-1. ‘the process subject to measurement'. ‘the name of the department or process and the name of the chemical (name of the product), ‘the monthly handling quantity'. ‘The outline of the working environment measurement' in 2. The location (place)-2 of the harmful factors by unit work place, the summary of the working environment measurement ‘the working environment measurement', ‘the place of measurement'-1' or ‘the place of measurement' and the combined results of the ‘fair measurement' and the combined results of the work environment (level)'.

6) Detailed contents of each of the instant information

A) Each of the information of this case is a semi-annually report on the result to the Defendants after the Plaintiff had the designated measurement institution conduct a working environment measurement of each of the instant factories semi-annually, and the harmful factors subject to working environment measurement in each of the instant factories so far do not seem to have been measured beyond the legal standards.

B) Each measurement report consists of ① marks, ② a report on the result of working environment measurement (Article 94(1) and attached Form 20 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act), ③ a report on the result of working environment measurement (Article 94(1) and attached Form 21 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act), and ④ a separate mDR data.

C) In the above part (1), the title, the target year, the classification of the first and second half of the year, and the target factory are stated (No. 1 of the attached Table 2 Information List No. 1).

D) In the above part (2), the summary of the place of business, the name of the measuring agency, the measurement date, the measurement results, the measurement cycle, etc. are stated (attached Form 2 No. 2 of the table in paragraph (1) of the attached Table 2)

E) The above three parts are comprised of ① marks, ① attached (the result of, and comprehensive opinions on, working environment measurement). The above part of the cover ① describe the outline of business place, the date and time of working environment measurement, the designated limit and result of measurement, etc. (attached Table 2, No. 3-1 of the attached Table 2, and the above part of the judgment below are indicated as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 13 through 15, 17, 18, Eul evidence Nos. 24-1, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 5, Eul court's work environment measurement report for the first half of 2014, the first half of 2013 and the second half of 2013, the work environment measurement report for the second half of 2014, the work environment measurement report for the second half of the second half of 2017, the results of public perusal and examination of the work environment measurement report for the second half of 2017, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. Relevant legal principles

Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "business secrets of a corporation, etc., which are subject to non-disclosure, mean "all information on business activities that are advantageous to the disclosure of another person," or all confidential information on business activities, and whether to disclose such information shall be determined depending on whether there is a legitimate interest to refuse disclosure. In addition, the determination of whether there is a legitimate interest shall be made by comprehensively taking into account the legislative intent of the Information Disclosure Act aimed at guaranteeing citizens' right to know and securing citizens' participation in state affairs and transparency in state administration as well as the nature of the relevant corporation, etc., rights of the relevant corporation, competitive status, etc., and the need to protect the rights of the relevant corporation, etc., the relationship with the relevant corporation, etc., in light of the content and nature of the benefits to be protected, such as the nature of the relevant corporation, etc., rights of the relevant corporation, etc., the relevant corporation, etc., and the relevant details and nature of the benefits to be protected,

C. Whether the key information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under the main sentence of Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act

1) Examining the facts acknowledged earlier, based on the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the facts acknowledged by the respective statements and arguments set forth in Nos. 5 and 33, the following circumstances may be known or assessed as follows.

○ 반도체 제조 공정은 웨이퍼(Wafer, 반도체 집적회로의 원재료로 사용되는 원판형의 얇고 둥근 판)에 반도체 패턴을 입히는 전공정(Front-End Process)과 웨이퍼에서 개별 반도체 칩을 잘라 조립하고 패키징하는 후공정(Back-End Process)으로 나뉘며, 이 사건 각 공장에서는 그중 전공정이 이루어진다. 전공정은 다시 확산(Diffusion, 반도체의 특성을 결정짓는 얇은 막을 만드는 공정), 감광(Photolitho graphy, 마스크 사이로 빛을 투과하여 회로를 그리는 공정), 식각(Etching, 사진 촬영 후 필요한 패턴만 남기고 웨이퍼를 파내는 공정), 이온주입(Ion Implant, 붕소, 인, 비소 등의 이온을 강제로 웨이퍼 표면에 주입하는 공정), 세정(Clean, 초순수를 이용하여 식각 이후 남겨진 필름 잔여물 또는 오염물을 제거하는 공정), 증착(Deposition, 웨이퍼 위에 절연막 등을 만드는 공정), 평탄화(Chemical Mechanical Polishing, 웨이퍼 표면을 연마하여 높낮이를 일정하게 만드는 공정), 금속배선(Metal, 금속막을 웨이퍼 표면에 덮어 전기가 통하도록 만드는 공정) 등으로 구성되어 있다. 위 각 공정은 자동반송장비가 웨이퍼를 신고 각 공정 내 또는 각 공정 사이를 수십 일간 수백 회에 걸쳐 반복 이동하는 방식으로 수행된다. 이러한 전공정의 특수성으로 인하여 위 각 공정을 어떠한 순서로 배치하고, 위 각 공정의 면적을 어느 정도로 설정할지에 따라 웨이퍼의 동선 및 이동거리가 달라지며, 그에 따른 생산량 차이, 추가 비용 발생 등으로 반도체 생산의 효율에 상당한 차이가 발생하게 된다. 원고는 국내 최대 규모의 반도체 제조사로서 그동안의 연구개발과 투자를 통해 최적화된 배치(Jay-out) 방식을 개발하고자 노력을 기울여 현재에 이르게 되었다. ○ 산자부장관은 산업기술보호전문위원회의 심의를 거쳐 2018. 4. 23. 이 사건 각 공장의 2009년부터 2017년까지 측정보고서 중 측정위치도, 부서/공정명, 단위작업장소, 화학물질명(상품명), 월 취급량이 반도체 분야의 국가핵심기술에 해당한다고 판정하였다. 위 판정에서 산자부장관은 '부서/공정명' 및 '단위작업장소'에 기재된 라인, 층, 공정, Bay2) 정보를 조합하여 공정 배치(lay-out)를 유추하여 측정위치도와 유사한 정보를 획득하는 것이 가능하다고 인정하였다. 산업기술보호전문위원회는 산업기술의 유출 방지 및 보호에 관한 사항을 사전에 전문적으로 검토하기 위하여 산자부장관 산하에 각 분야별로 설치되는 기관이며(산업기술보호법 제7조 제5항), 그 위원은 '관계 행정기관의 4급 또는 4급 상당 공무원으로서 소관 행정기관의 장이 추천하는 자 중에서 산업기술보호위원회 위원장이 임명하는 자' 또는 '소관 분야별로 산업기술의 유출방지 및 보호에 관한 학식과 경험이 풍부한 자로서 관계 행정기관의 장이 추천하는 자 중에서 산업기술보호위원회 위원장이 위촉하는 자'로 구성된다(산업기술보호법 시행령 제7조제4항), 위 판정은 행정청이 관계 법령이 정하는 바에 따라 고도의 전문적이고 기술적인 사항에 관하여 전문적인 판단을 한 것이어서 판단의 기초가 된 사실인정에 중대한 오류가 있거나 판단이 객관적으로 불합리하거나 부당하다는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한 존중되어야 한다(대법원 2016. 1. 28. 선고 2013두21120 판결 참조).

Therefore, the Defendants asserted that the determination of national core technology at the time of the disposition should be based on the determination of legality of each of the above decisions, and that the determination of national core technology was made after the determination of each of the above decisions in this case. However, the meaning of the time of the determination of illegality is not the market price of the judgment, but the time of the disposition, based on the relevant statutes and factual conditions at the time of an administrative disposition, and the meaning of the time of the disposition is not affected by the amendment or amendment of statutes or changes in the factual state after the disposition, or the materials submitted to the administrative agency after the disposition does not mean the determination of illegality. Thus, the proof of facts, etc. at the time of the disposition can be made until the time of the closing of oral argument at the fact-finding court. The court can determine the objective facts and determine illegality of the disposition based on the facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du37122, Apr. 7, 2017). The contents of the key information at issue did not change before and after the aforementioned determination, and it cannot be viewed as the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1).

As a national core technology, key information can be used as one data to determine whether the key information is subject to non-disclosure.

The defendants asserted that the measurement report after 2010 contains a measurement position. Even according to the plaintiff's argument, the fair allocation of "lay" is frequently changed for the purpose of enhancing semiconductor productivity, and the issue information selecting some places is not sufficient to grasp the semiconductor production process in detail, and even if it is disclosed only because it is nothing more than the past information, it is not likely to seriously undermine the plaintiff's interest. However, as seen above, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry determined that the measurement report for the year in which the measurement location is not included, falls under national core technology, and the "the unit work site" was determined as the "the unit of production" and the "the unit work site" as the national core technology. The plaintiff's argument is that, even if the measurement location report for the chemical factory in the second half of 2012 to 2014 is included, it can not be concluded that the change of the previous measurement location report constitutes the "fair production capacity" and the "fair-out process-related information" can not be defined as the change of the plaintiff's production capacity.

○ The Plaintiff either exported each of the instant information or registered a patent to a third party, thereby not disclosing the content of the measurement report to the service company at the time of the commission of the work environment measurement and the preparation of the report, and indirectly compelling the service company to disclose the content of the measurement report, and indirectly compelling the service company to do so. While disclosing the content of the measurement report to the employees belonging to the Plaintiff, the key information is deemed to be managed as business and business secrets in that it demands a security pledge from employees and controls external outflow of internal documents due to strict security measures. The Defendants asserted that the binding force of the Daejeon High Court Decision (2017Nu10874) on the Daejeon High Court Decision (2017Nu10874) is limited to the Defendants, the pertinent administrative agency, so the information is not subject to non-disclosure information under Article 9(1)

The binding force of a final and conclusive judgment does not conflict with the binding force of a final and conclusive judgment, even though it was revoked by the previous disposition, on the grounds other than those of the previous disposition, even if the previous disposition was revoked. Here, whether it is the same or different grounds should be determined depending on whether it is identical with the previous grounds and basic facts determined to be unlawful in the final and conclusive judgment. Whether it is identical with the factual basis is determined based on the same factual basis as that of the basic social facts, which are the basis of the final and conclusive judgment, based on the specific facts prior to legal evaluation of the grounds. In addition, the determination of illegality of an administrative disposition is based on the relevant laws and regulations at the time when an administrative disposition was rendered. As such, an administrative agency that is the party to the final and conclusive judgment may re-examine the previous disposition on the grounds of new grounds that were incurred after the previous disposition, and even if the new grounds for disposition are different from those of the previous disposition, it does not conflict with the binding force of the final and conclusive judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du3845, supra).

[Defendant's above assertion should be applied to this case. Considering the purport that the facts and legal principles recognized in the Daejeon High Court Decision (2017Nu10874), the judgment at a higher court court's judgment is just bound by lower court's judgment (Article 8 of the Court Organization Act). Thus, from Daejeon High Court Decision (2017Nu10874) to Daejeon High Court Decision 2007 to 2014, the head of Seoan High Court's Decision and Seoan High Court Decision (207Nu10874) did not clearly indicate that the remaining part of "the harmful factors measured by the unit work place" and "the personal name (name of workers) of the harmful factors measurement result by the unit work place" are not subject to non-disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act. Thus, it is difficult to see that the court's decision was substantially related to "the department/factory name, unit work site" and "the business environment subject to non-disclosure" of this case's 7-1207Da172074.

2) Examining the aforementioned various circumstances and assessment elements in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the issues are as follows.

In relation to each of the factories of this case, the information contains information on the placement of process and equipment, changes in production capacity and production volume, degree of automation, etc. It is a technical know-how that has considerable interest to keep it confidential in relation to the competitors, and it falls under the matters concerning the plaintiff's management and business secrets, and if disclosed, it is recognized that the legitimate interests of the plaintiff may be significantly harmed. Thus, it is determined that the information subject to non-disclosure under the main sentence of Article 9 (1) 7 of the Information Disclosure

3) As to this, the defendants asserts that even if the dispute information falls under the information subject to non-disclosure, if the day is deleted, or if no day is marked from the beginning, it is impossible to grasp the contents of the semiconductor process and thus it should be disclosed separately.

Article 14 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "where the information requested for disclosure is mixed with a part falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 9 (1) and the part that can be disclosed, the part falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 9 (1) shall be excluded in cases where the two parts can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of a request for disclosure." In this context, "where the part that falls under the information subject to disclosure and the part that can be disclosed can be separated from the part that does not go against the purport of a request for disclosure" refers to cases where the relevant information does not mean cases where the information is physically distinguishable, but it does not mean cases where the relevant information is excluded or deleted from the technology related to the information subject to disclosure and it is possible to disclose only the remaining part and it is worth disclosure only with the other part (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12707, Dec. 9,

In this case, the information claimed by the Plaintiff as business secrets is not limited to the information on what process the Plaintiff has placed in accordance with the order of any process, and in light of the purport of the determination of the national core technology of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry as seen earlier, even if there is no day information, it is deemed possible to lay-out information by combining the information, such as lay-out information, stories, process, etc., even if there is no day information, it does not constitute a case where it is possible to separately disclose the remaining part except day information as it falls under the information subject to non-disclosure. Accordingly, the aforementioned argument by the Defendants is without merit.

D. Whether the key issue information constitutes the information subject to disclosure under the proviso of Article 9(1)7 (a) of the Information Disclosure Act

1) Article 9(1)7 proviso (a) of the Information Disclosure Act provides that the information held and managed by a public institution is subject to disclosure if it is a “information that needs to be disclosed to protect people’s lives, bodies, or health from danger and injury caused by business activities,” even if the information pertaining to corporate management and trade secrets, which is about corporate management and trade secrets, and is likely to seriously harm legitimate interests of corporations, etc. if disclosed.”

2) The following circumstances are revealed according to the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of Gap evidence 21-1 to 20, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 8-3, Eul evidence 11 and 12, and Eul evidence 12, as a whole.

Article 42 of the former Occupational Safety and Health Act provides that a business owner shall have a representative of workers at the time of working environment measurement (the latter part of paragraph (1)), and that a result of working environment measurement shall be notified to the workers of such result, and that such measures shall be taken to protect the health of workers, such as the installation, improvement, or health examination of the relevant facilities and equipment (paragraph (3)). If a representative of workers so requests, he/she shall directly hold an explanatory meeting on the result of working environment measurement or have the agency which measured the working environment hold an explanatory meeting (paragraph (6). Article 40(3)3 of the former Occupational Safety and Health Act provides that a business owner shall faithfully comply with a request for the assessment of the content of working environment (Article 40(3) of the same Act).

As such, business owners are obligated to inform their employees of the result of the working environment measurement in accordance with the occupational safety and health laws and regulations, it is difficult to deem that it is unnecessary to disclose the result of the working environment measurement externally. The Plaintiff actually explains the result of all the working environment measurement through the website twice a year to workers’ representatives, and employees are allowed to peruse the result of the working environment measurement of the process they work through the intra-company network without any concerns at any time, and the contents of the result of the working environment measurement are more detailed than the result of the working environment measurement through the "Framework on Safety and Health" kept in the production licensee.

Among the content of this measurement report, ‘harmful factors', ‘harmful factors', ‘time time of occurrence of harmful factors', and ‘measurement value', which are directly related to the life, body, or health of workers working at each plant of this case, were all subject to disclosure, and the level of exposure to harmful factors at each plant of this case until now seems to have been below the statutory exposure standard.

○ In the case of nearby residents of each plant of this case, it can sufficiently be confirmed that harmful factors emitted from each plant of this case and information on the level of exposure may have any impact on life, body and health, and it is difficult to separately recognize that there is a need to know about specific places within the factory where harmful factors are generated.

○ In light of the language and text of the foregoing provision, it is premised on the premise that it would prevent hazards arising from business activities in advance or expansion of risks. The assertion of information disclosure under the above provision for the purpose of proving that former workers suffered harm in the course of industrial accident litigation is beyond the scope of the above language and text, and the parties to the lawsuit may submit data containing key information through an order to submit documents or a request for fact inquiry, etc. in the relevant litigation procedure.

The Intervenor asserts that, in order to lead the Plaintiff’s non-approval decision on industrial accident, part of the content of the measurement report, such as fact finding, etc., of the court’s arbitrary extraction, editing, or arbitrarily omitted measurement records, the key information should be disclosed. However, as seen earlier, the Intervenor’s assertion that the Plaintiff concealed the content of measurement report or submitted the results of arbitrarily editing and modification is difficult. Furthermore, according to the former Occupational Safety and Health Act, the working environment measurement is conducted by a specialized measurement institution designated by the Minister of Employment and Labor in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Article 42(4)), the measurement institution shall report the results of working environment measurement to the Minister of Employment and Labor (Article 42(1)), and the Minister of Employment and Labor shall evaluate and educate the working environment measurement and analysis capabilities of the designated measurement institution in order to ensure the accuracy and reliability of working environment measurement (Article 42(8)), and where it is deemed necessary to ensure credibility and accuracy of working environment measurement results (Article 42(2)6).

The Defendants have concluded that the risk of working environment factors in the clean room in the epidemiological investigation report (Evidence B No. 12) announced by the Industrial Safety and Health Research Institute on May 22, 2019 is presumed to be related to the risk of cancer diseases. The above report contains the results of the investigation on cancer and death based on the data such as the report from 2013 to 2017, and it is not possible to classify workers according to the detailed process because the data on personnel management at the time of the epidemiological investigation do not reveal the fair name. Thus, the above epidemiological investigation shows that the issue information should be disclosed. However, in the above epidemiological investigation, the Korea Industrial Safety and Health Research Institute will analyze the total of the annual measurement report stating both the departments and process, and the reason why it is impossible to classify workers according to the detailed process is not because the data on personnel management were omitted.

The Defendants asserted that the binding force of the Daejeon High Court Decision (2017Nu10874) (2017Nu10874) extends to the determination of whether the information constitutes the information subject to disclosure under the proviso of Article 9(1)7 (a) of the Information Disclosure Act. However, as seen in Article 9(1)-1 (c) of the same Act, the above assertion is without merit (as stated in Article 9(1)-1 of the same Act, the facts and legal principles recognized by the Daejeon High Court Decision (2017Nu10874) should be applied to this part). Even if the ○○ Intervenor falls under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act, it is without merit as stated in Article 9(1)-7 (a) of the Information Disclosure Act that some of its contents fall under the scope of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, and that all of the information pertaining to safety and health of workers and local residents was disclosed to the public and all of the information pertaining to the factory of this case, but all of this case’s special examination and its contents.

3) In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the key information constitutes information that requires disclosure in order to protect the lives, bodies, and health of people from the foregoing damage caused by business activities.

5. Conclusion

Since the part ordering the disclosure of key information among the decision of the defendants in this case should be revoked in an unlawful manner, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants should be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim should be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is justified in conclusion, and the defendants' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges

The judge of the presiding judge shall be mining only

Judges' Quota

Judges Training Sub-Appellant

Note tin

1) The aforementioned provision was wholly amended by Act No. 9434 on February 6, 2009, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act was wholly amended on January 15, 2019.

Until now the wording was modified.

(ii) the area designated by the process as a space for processing the wafers forming the base of semiconductors in semiconductor process.

the space where the manufacturing facilities are displayed on a one-way basis means a space where workers work.

3) Article 40 of the former Working Environment Measurement and Accuracy Management Regulations (amended by the Ministry of Labor No. 45 on December 11, 2007)

Since the enactment of Paragraph 3, it has reached the present time through only the modification of the number and wording of the provision.