A. As to B, the Plaintiff has a claim for KRW 60 million based on the final judgment and damages for delay.

In the case where the Plaintiff filed an application for property specification against B pursuant to the above title, B prepared a list of property stating that C receives KRW 1,450,000 as monthly remuneration from C.

B. On August 6, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the issuance of a collection order with B as the debtor, and filed an application with the court for disclosure of “the number of stocks and the monthly remuneration status received from B Co., Ltd. and C” (hereinafter “the instant information”).

C. On August 6, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision of non-disclosure of information (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant information is subject to non-disclosure pursuant to Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B is practically operating a stock company C, and as if only monthly remuneration is paid by C, the false list of property is prepared, and the information on B is not worth protecting. Thus, the instant information should be disclosed.

The instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. As to the part requesting the direct disclosure of information 1 information, the Plaintiff sought to disclose to the Defendant the status of changes in ownership and remuneration for the stock company B C, but such a performance lawsuit is a type of lawsuit seeking to delete the obligation of the administrative agency to make the court take such administrative disposition.