1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the list of the claim for disclosure of information in attached Form, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on September 10, 2012.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance except for the part concerning which the court's determination of the court of first instance is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The second half of the judgment of the first instance court in the height shall be the second half of the judgment in the second instance to "hereinafter."

The 4th 20 to 21th , and 5th 1 to 10th , are as follows.

(2) (2) According to the result of the non-disclosure inspection of the data listed in the separate sheet of information disclosure claim filed by this court, "non-disclosure portion" and "additional non-disclosure portion" in the separate sheet of information disclosure claim are related to the prospects of domestic industry in question, analysis to the extent that the relevant industry's competitiveness is compared, scenarios are affected by the domestic industry in accordance with the relevant domestic industry, and the negotiation strategies in Korea, etc. of the Republic of Korea. If such information is exposed to China, which is the other party to the negotiation, it is highly likely that if such information is exposed to China, which is the other party to the negotiation, it would compromise the negotiating power in Korea, and if Korea becomes unable to negotiate with the best negotiation power, it seems that Korea will suffer enormous disadvantage that is difficult to see in Korea, and considering that the above "non-disclosure portion" and "additional non-disclosure portion" in the separate sheet of information disclosure claim are mere simple analysis of the current economic power of Korea, China, and Japan, the remainder of the "non-disclosure portion" and "non-disclosure portion" in this case is unlawful.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition.