1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant”) against the Plaintiff on October 30, 2014.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to adding "(including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply)" to "No. 10 of the second instance judgment (hereinafter referred to as "information") to "the information of this case" or "the information of this case", "the third third instance "the degree of measuring harmful factors by unit work place" among the information of this case, "the degree of measuring harmful factors by unit work place" is "the degree of this case's measurement", and "No. 1 through 3" in Part 5 of the third instance judgment, and "No. 1 of the judgment of the first instance is the same as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance."

2. We examine the legality of the lawsuit seeking revocation of the part concerning the revocation of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information on each of the instant reports from 1986 to 2006, among the instant reports, on each of the instant reports from 1986 to 2006.

In addition to the statement in Gap evidence No. 4, the following circumstances, i.e., ① according to the written ruling of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission (No. 2015-03740, No. 40) on the disposition of this case, the defendant stated that the report of this case was not held with respect to each of the reports from 1986 to 2006, ② the court requested the defendant to submit the original report of this case to the full bench for non-disclosure questioning. The defendant submitted the report of this case only to each of the reports from 2007 to 2014, ③ at the closed hearing of this court on December 13, 2017, the plaintiff did not specifically raise any objection or mention the facts that the plaintiff had not submitted the report of this case before 206.