포상금
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.
1. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning the background of the disposition and this part of the relevant statutes are as stated in each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420
2. On January 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant claim by asserting that the Defendant’s payment of only a monetary reward for reporting tax evasion accounts to the Plaintiff on March 14, 2017, even though the Plaintiff had filed an application for payment of monetary reward for reporting tax evasion reports with the Defendant on January 17, 2017, constitutes the Plaintiff’s refusal of payment of monetary reward for reporting tax evasion reports.
In principle, an expression of intent to file an application with an administrative agency shall be specified and conclusive, and shall be made in writing. Whether an expression of intent in a document seeking a certain disposition against an administrative agency constitutes an act of filing an application should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the content, time and purport of the document, and the process and purport
An administrative agency’s refusal of an application without justifiable cause or failure to take a certain measure within a reasonable period of time against a private person’s legitimate application is unlawful.
However, in order to consider that a certain measure of the administrative agency constitutes a rejection disposition against the above application, it should be seen that the decision-making of the administrative agency's final and practical rejection is made externally by the competent agency and the applicant has different status from the applicant's identity.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6212, 6229, Oct. 23, 2008). As to the instant report on tax evasion, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the results of treatment on or around January 10, 2017 by deeming it as the instant report on the borrowed account, and notified the Plaintiff of the procedures for applying for payment of the borrowed account rewards. On or around January 17, 2017, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant’s person in charge of tax evasion (C team leader) to treat the instant report as a return on tax evasion (Evidence 11).