2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

In the National Tax Service Special Tax Investigation conducted by the Defendant from September 26, 2006 to December 5, 2006, it imposed an additional amount of KRW 2.5 billion on the case paid in full on January 31, 2007, and revoked a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information on each of the information listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiffs on July 5, 2016.

A. On June 21, 2016, ○○○, the representative director of the Plaintiffs, filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of each information listed in the separate sheet, which the Defendant had against the Plaintiffs under the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) in relation to a regular tax investigation conducted by the Defendant from September 26, 2006 to December 5, 2016.

B. On July 5, 2016, the Defendant, under the name of the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, provided the current status of the payment of high tax among the corrective resolution and the post-management on the Defendant’s tax investigation for the year 2006 against the Plaintiffs on April 27, 2015. Other claim data (including seven copies of the written consent No. 6 in the attached list) are not nonexistent as the already discarded information after the lapse of the preservation period of the document, and made a partial decision to disclose only the current status of the payment of notified tax and to not disclose the remaining information among the corrective resolution and post-management already disclosed (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition shall be revoked on the grounds as follows.

A) The Defendant disclosed the amount of recovery, tax base and calculated tax for each item of taxation known to the Plaintiffs through the disclosure of the correction resolution, but did not so even if the disclosure made it possible for the Plaintiffs to know the content thereof.

B) The Defendant asserts that no information other than the information disclosed through the disclosure of the correction resolution does not exist after the lapse of the preservation period under the premise that it is a record with a prescription of not less than three but less than five years pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. However, according to Article 27(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the extinctive prescription of the right to collect national taxes with respect to at least 500 million won is ten years, and thus, the preservation period of the remaining information, which is a record of the tax investigation in

3. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. The defendant's main defense

For the following reasons, the instant lawsuit ought to be dismissed.

1) On November 18, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of information disclosure (2015Guhap12410 of the Seoul Administrative Court) against the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, which is identical to the instant lawsuit, and rendered a judgment dismissing the instant lawsuit. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is a repetition of unnecessary dispute settlement procedures, which violates Article 56(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 51 of the Administrative Appeals Act, and constitutes abuse of rights as a lawsuit

2) Since the information listed in the attached list is already included in the correction resolution already disclosed by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs or was discarded upon the expiration of the preservation period of the five-year document, there is no legal interest to seek the revocation of the non-disclosure decision of the instant disposition.

B. Determination

1) Whether the instant lawsuit constitutes an abuse of rights as a violation of law or a double lawsuit

A) Whether it constitutes a violation of law

According to Article 56(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 51 of the Administrative Appeals Act, if a ruling is made on ‘request for examination' or ‘request for adjudication', the ‘request for examination' or ‘request for adjudication' cannot be again made on the ruling, the same disposition and omission. However, the ‘request for examination' or ‘request for adjudication' under the above provision means a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes, not administrative litigation under the Administrative Litigation Act, but the procedure for objection to the disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or under the tax law is irrelevant to the procedure for objection to the disposition of refusal of information disclosure under

B) Whether the double lawsuit constitutes abuse of rights

(2) On April 15, 2015, Plaintiff AA consulting corporation filed a claim for disclosure of information with the same content as on April 27, 2015; the Defendant notified Plaintiff AA consulting corporation of the full payment of the notified amount while sending the content of imposition by tax item to the Plaintiff AA consulting corporation on May 15, 2015; and notified that the document containing other information was not in existence after the preservation period expires; the Defendant filed an objection on June 19, 2015; and the Defendant sent the remaining Plaintiffs of July 6, 2015 with additional details of imposition by relevant tax item and the notified amount paid in full; the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Director of Seoul Regional Tax Office on November 18, 2015, stating that the Plaintiff A consulting corporation was not subject to a dispute on the grounds that the period of filing the lawsuit was lapsed, and that the Plaintiff’s rejection of the disclosure of information became final and conclusive among the parties to the lawsuit on May 21, 2017.

However, the instant lawsuit is seeking revocation of the instant disposition, not the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information as of May 15, 2015, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit filed on November 18, 2015 cannot be deemed to fall under duplicate litigation because the subject matter of lawsuit is different from that of the lawsuit filed on November 18, 2015, and there is no circumstance to deem that the Plaintiffs solely sought information disclosure for the purpose of inducing the Defendant. Therefore, it cannot

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

2) Whether there is benefit of action resulting from the disclosure or destruction of the information in question

A) Relevant legal principles

Information subject to disclosure as referred to in the Information Disclosure Act refers to the information not itself but to the information recorded in the media, etc. as examples under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Information Disclosure Act. In principle, the information subject to disclosure is specified by the content of the written request for information disclosure prepared by the person who requests the disclosure in accordance with Article 10(1)2 of the Information Disclosure Act. If the person who requests the disclosure does not retain and manage the information as specified in special circumstances, there is no legal interest to seek revocation of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of the relevant information, barring any special circumstances. If a public institution holds and manages the information subject to disclosure at the time, but no document containing the information is destroyed and no longer exist, the burden of proving that the information is no longer held and managed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du18919, Jan. 24, 2013).

B) Specific determination

① On May 15, 2015 and July 6, 2015, the Defendant disclosed the information listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiffs on May 15, 2015 and July 6, 2015, and determined that the document containing the remaining information did not exist after the preservation period expires. On July 5, 2016, the fact that the Defendant issued the instant disposition under the name of the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office and notified it to the same effect

② The plaintiffs seem to seek revocation of the part related to the above information among the dispositions of this case with the purport that the disclosure of information that was not provided in the form of adjusted under the premise that the plaintiffs had a duty to easily understand the contents of the information in the attached list 1 through 3 already disclosed by the defendant, is not different from the rejection disposition.However, the defendant is sufficient to provide the information for which the plaintiffs have requested disclosure, and it cannot be said that there is a duty to adjust and provide the relevant information for the convenience of the plaintiffs' interests. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for revocation on the premise that there was a rejection disposition against the already provided information is not a benefit of lawsuit.

③ The Plaintiffs also seek disclosure of the above information on the premise that the preservation period of information set forth in the separate sheet remains. However, Article 27(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which is based on the Plaintiffs’ assertion, provides for the extinctive prescription of the right to collect national taxes, and does not constitute a ground provision for preserving the relevant document until the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. Even if that provision does not so, the extinctive prescription of the said provision of the Framework Act on National Taxes was amended by Act No. 11604, Jan. 1, 2013; the extinctive prescription of the right to collect national taxes of at least KRW 500,000,000, is extended by 10 years, and the extinctive prescription of the right to collect national taxes is provided for five years, regardless

Furthermore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant holds the above information, and this part of the plaintiffs' claims do not have a benefit of lawsuit.

④ Ultimately, the Plaintiffs’ claim is unlawful as there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the disposition rejecting disclosure of information that the Defendant had already disclosed, owned, or not managed.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiffs' lawsuit is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss all of them. It is so decided as per Disposition.