1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an organization aimed at protecting fundamental human rights and contributing to the development of democracy.

B. On April 22, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant for disclosure of the “Research Report (excluding the Government’s strategy to negotiate rice customs duties or options, and equivalent to the customs duties calculated as a result of the application of the objective formula in the WTO Agreement)” (hereinafter “instant information”). However, on May 1, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting disclosure of the instant information (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the disclosure of the instant information would seriously interfere with the Plaintiff’s fair performance of duties, such as government position, response to WTO verification procedures, etc. at the time of customsization,” and it is deemed that there is a risk that information may be exposed to the interested countries on Korea’s choice, which is likely to seriously undermine the national interest, and thus constitutes a non-disclosure cause under Article 9(1)2 and 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 3 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s claim for disclosure of the instant information is a claim for disclosure of the customs duty rate calculated by the government under the circumstances where the formula had already been disclosed. As such, the instant information cannot be deemed to constitute “information pertaining to national security, national defense, unification, diplomatic relations, etc. and, if disclosed, likely to seriously undermine the State’s interests.” 2) The instant information disclosure claim does not demand disclosure of the government’s multiple choices, and it does not require disclosure of the decision-making process or internal review process.