탈세제보 포상금 지급거부처분이 적법한지[국승]
Suwon District Court-2018Guhap61414 (2018.08)
Whether a disposition rejecting payment of a tax evasion report is legitimate;
The lawsuit of this case, which is based on the premise that the disposition of refusal to apply for a monetary reward for tax evasion was rendered, is unlawful as it is a revocation lawsuit against an administrative disposition that does not exist.
Payment of rewards under Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
2018Nu61804 Monetary Rewards
this Act
Local Tax Service
Suwon District Court Decision 2018Guhap61414 Decided August 8, 2018
November 20, 2018
December 11, 2018
1. The lawsuit of this case is dismissed in exchange for another court.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On March 14, 2017, the defendant revoked the disposition rejecting the payment of monetary rewards for tax evasion reports made against the plaintiff on March 14, 2017 (the plaintiff sought the revocation of the disposition rejecting the payment of monetary rewards made by the defendant against the plaintiff in the first instance court on November 20, 2017, but the court changed the above claim in exchange).
1. Details of the disposition and related statutes;
The court's explanation on this part is the same as the statement on each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of the first instance, and thus, this part is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Whether the lawsuit is lawful;
On January 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant claim by asserting that the Defendant, on March 14, 2017, paid only the monetary reward for reporting tax evasion to the Plaintiff on March 14, 2017, constitutes a refusal of payment of monetary reward for reporting tax evasion.
In principle, an expression of intent to file an application with an administrative agency shall be clearly and definitely stated and made in writing. Whether an expression of intent in a document seeking a disposition against an administrative agency constitutes an act of filing an application ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, including the content of the document and the process, time, purport, etc. of the preparation and submission thereof. It is unlawful for an administrative agency to refuse an application or to take a certain measure within a reasonable time, without justifiable grounds, against a legitimate application by a private person. However, in order for an administrative agency to consider a certain measure as an act of refusing an application as such, it shall be deemed that the administrative agency’s decision to refuse the application was made externally and externally and the applicant can be seen as different from the situation in which the applicant can be seen (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6212, 6229, Oct.
On January 10, 2017, regarding the instant report on tax evasion, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the results of the processing thereof and notified the Plaintiff of the procedures for applying for the payment of a report on the borrowed account. On January 17, 2017, the Plaintiff sent a civil petition letter (Evidence (Evidence (Evidence (A11) to the Defendant’s person in charge of the Defendant’s tax evasion report. However, on February 16, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of a report on the borrowed account (Evidence (Evidence (Evidence (Evidence (1) with the Defendant on February 16, 2017), and the Defendant paid KRW 00,000 of the monetary reward to the Plaintiff on March 14, 2017, along with the notification of the results of applying for the payment of a report on the borrowed account (Evidence 2).
In other words, the Defendant directed the Plaintiff on January 10, 2017 that he/she would apply for the payment of a monetary reward for reporting the borrowed account. Accordingly, the Plaintiff applied for the payment of a monetary reward for reporting the borrowed account on February 16, 2017. The Defendant’s measures against the Plaintiff on March 14, 2017 are limited to the notification of the result of handling the application for the payment of the borrowed account monetary reward and the payment date thereof, and the details of the monetary reward are not entirely included in the monetary reward for reporting the tax evasion. Although the Plaintiff sent a civil petition to the Plaintiff on or around January 17, 2017, it is difficult to view the Plaintiff as a final application for any disposition against an administrative agency as a result of treating the borrowed account as a tax evasion report. Moreover, even if it is deemed that the Plaintiff’s application can not be seen as an act of filing a monetary reward for reporting the tax evasion report, the Plaintiff’s notification of omission and the result of the payment of the monetary reward shall not be included in the Plaintiff’s report.
Therefore, the instant lawsuit, based on the premise that the Defendant rendered a rejection disposition against the Plaintiff as to the application for the payment of a monetary reward for reporting tax evasion, on March 14, 2017, is unlawful as there is no legal interest in the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010).
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the lawsuit of this case that the plaintiff changed in exchange in this court is unlawful and thus dismissed.