IsaA

Seoul Regional Tax Office

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

On February 22, 2012, the Defendant’s disposition of non-disclosure of the information described in paragraphs 1(a) through (e) and 2(b) against the Plaintiff is revoked.

【Plaintiff withdrawn a lawsuit as to the information stated in attached Form 2(A) at the trial.】

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff's purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant's non-disclosure disposition on the information described in attached Form 1 (d) against the plaintiff on February 22, 2012 shall be revoked.

B. The defendant's purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed in entirety.

[The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant among the part of the judgment of the court of first instance was invalidated as the plaintiff withdraws a lawsuit on the information stated in attached Form 2 (A) from the trial as above.]

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers).

“○○ Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming inheritance recovery against the deceased’s heir under the Seoul Family Court Decision 98D98182, the Seoul Family Court (Seoul Family Court Decision 98D98182, and received a judgment citing the claim on December 23, 1999, and this judgment became final and conclusive on November 27, 2001, following the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2000D263) and the final appeal (Supreme Court 2001Meu1353).” “After ○○, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming inheritance recovery against the deceased’s heir under the Seoul Family Court 2003Dhap87, and on July 22, 2005, the said court decided to recommend reconciliation that “the deceased’s heir would pay OOOO to the Plaintiff,” and this decision became final and conclusive as is / [2]

"On the other hand, the defendant made a tax investigation on the inheritance tax to be paid by the heir of the deceased (hereinafter referred to as "tax investigation of this case") on December 28, 201, and notified the plaintiff of the following contents in accordance with Article 81-12 of the Framework Act on National Taxes on December 28, 201."

Inheritance Tax Base Decision

Inheritance Tax Amount

Estimated amount of inheritance tax notified

Inheritance Tax Borne by the Plaintiff (2.29% of the shares);

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

One of the successors of ○○ deceased submitted an application for sole notification of inheritance tax and an application for annual installment payment to the Defendant that he/she is responsible for and paid all inheritance tax.

[3]

On February 2, 2012, "○○ Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose the information listed in the attached Form, and the Defendant rendered a disposition that the Defendant decided not to disclose the above information on February 22, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the instant disposition")." The reason for the instant disposition is that: (a) the information is not owned and managed by the Defendant; (b) the information is the information that is not owned and managed by the Defendant; (c) Articles 81-13 and 81-14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; (c) Article 9 (1) 5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; (d) Article 6 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Official Information Disclosure Act; (d) Article 4 (4) of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality; and (c) Article 7 of the Guidelines for Management of Information Disclosure of National Tax Service Information; and (2) the instant safety objection defense.

A. The defendant's assertion

Since the information described in attached Form 1(c), (d), and (e) is not owned and managed by the defendant, the part concerning the above information among the lawsuits in this case is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) In light of the fact that the information disclosure system is a system that discloses information held and managed by a public institution in its state, it is sufficient to prove that there is a considerable probability that the person seeking the information disclosure will possess and manage the information that is sought by the administrative agency. However, in the event that the public institution does not retain and manage the information, there is no legal interest to seek the revocation of the disposition rejecting the information disclosure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du9459, Jan. 13, 2006)

(2) Attached Form 1(c). Information described

"The above information is a detailed statement of distribution by inheritor." The total amount of tax to be paid to co-inheritors in imposing and notifying inheritance tax, as well as the amount of inheritance tax to be paid by each inheritor according to the inheritance ratio and proportion of each co-inheritors's property. As such, it is highly probable that the defendant retains and manages a detailed statement of distribution of inherited property by inheritor, which includes such contents. Even if the defendant does not retain and manage the above information at present, it is reasonable to view that the defendant can easily create and provide the above information based on the results of the tax investigation in this case. Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the above information in this case is unlawful because the above information is information not retained and managed by the defendant, is without merit.

"The above information is a detailed statement of notification of the prosecutor's tax evasion data, and there is no evidence to prove that there is a considerable probability that the defendant retains and manages the above information, and the above part of the lawsuit in this case is unlawful. This part of the defendant's assertion is reasonable.

"The above information is a statement of notification of data requested to financial institutions by bank. The reason for the disposition of this case was that the above information was subject to non-disclosure pursuant to Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the defendant did not retain and manage the above information after the tax investigation of this case." Since the above information was destroyed after the investigation of this case, the part concerning the above information in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since it was not owned and managed," and the defendant alleged that the above information was destroyed after recognizing that the defendant had possessed the original information. The defendant asserted that the above information was destroyed by the trial and did not submit any evidence or material to confirm such destruction. Thus, it cannot be recognized that the defendant did not retain and manage the above information.

Furthermore, in an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, the agency may add or change other reasons only to the extent that the original reason and basic factual relations are recognized to be identical to the original reason and the existence of the basic factual relations here are determined based on whether the basic social factual relations are identical in that of the same in terms of the basic facts before the legal evaluation of the grounds for disposition. As such, it cannot be said that the initial reason for the addition or alteration exists at the time of the disposition or that the party was aware of such fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19021, Nov. 24, 201). However, the reason why the Defendant does not retain and manage the said information by destroying it cannot be said to be identical in that the basic social relations is basic in view of the specific facts prior to the legal evaluation. Thus, in this case, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s possession and management of the said information cannot be asserted.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the above information is unlawful because it is information that the defendant did not own and manage, among the lawsuits of this case, is without merit.

3. Merits;

A. The defendant's assertion

Since all the information described in paragraph (2)(b) of attached Table 1 is subject to non-disclosure pursuant to Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the part concerning the above information among the dispositions of this case is lawful.

B. Determination

(1) Article 81-13(1) and (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "The tax official of △△ shall not provide or divulge data submitted by a taxpayer to meet the tax liability under the tax-related Acts, or data, etc. acquired on duty to impose and collect national taxes (hereinafter referred to as "tax information") to other persons, and shall refuse to provide the tax information if the taxpayer is requested to do so for any purpose other than the original purpose." Meanwhile, Article 81-14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "the tax official shall promptly provide the taxpayer with the information necessary for the taxpayer's exercise of his/her right." Article 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "The above taxpayer shall be jointly and severally liable for tax payment, including the second taxpayer and guarantor if the taxpayer becomes liable for payment on behalf of the taxpayer, and the person who has the obligation to collect and pay national taxes under the tax-related Acts, Article 81-12 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, when the tax official has completed the tax investigation, the heir or testamentary donee shall be notified in writing of the result of the taxpayer.

“If, according to the results of the instant tax investigation, a tax notice attached with the inheritance share statement stating the name of co-inheritors and the inheritance shares, etc., was served on one of the inheritors, the effect of the said tax notice even if the Plaintiff did not serve the notice on the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du16493, Jun. 24, 2010).” Moreover, permission for annual installments does not change the tax liability and the payment period determined by the original disposition of inheritance tax, but merely gives the taxpayer the benefit of installment payment and the extension of the payment period to the extent that it does not harm national tax revenue (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du3570, Jul. 12, 2002). Even if thisCC applied for a separate payment notice or a separate payment notice, the Plaintiff’s tax liability or joint and several liability is not exempted.

(3) If so, the plaintiff is liable to pay inheritance tax or joint and several tax liability based on the result of the tax investigation of this case and falls under "taxpayers prescribed in Article 81-14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes" as referred to in attached Form 1 (a), (b), (c), and (e) and paragraph 2 (b) are all information related to the plaintiff's above tax liability and necessary information for exercising the plaintiff's rights." Accordingly, the defendant should provide the above information to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 81-14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, the part concerning the above

4. Conclusion

According to the above, the part concerning the information stated in Section 1 (d) of the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the part concerning the remaining information except the information stated in Section 2 (A) of the disposition of this case shall be accepted by the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation as it is unlawful.