2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Preliminaryly, it is confirmed that the above rejection disposition is invalid.

A. On August 27, 2010, the Plaintiff reported to the Seoul Regional Tax Office the details of tax evasion related to the submission of financial transactions, etc. in relation to the tax evasion between March 2005 and August 10, 2010.

On March 16, 2011, the plaintiff was subject to a tax investigation, and according to the result, the defendant determined the amount of corporate tax imposed on the strengthening of the US on KRW 282,94,810, and notified the plaintiff of the application for payment of KRW 9,168,00 on March 19, 2011.

Accordingly, on September 5, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment and received KRW 9,168,00 from the Defendant as a reward for tax evasion reporting.

B. On January 12, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Defendant on January 12, 2012 that ① the standard amount of calculation of the monetary reward originally paid by the Defendant was erroneous, ② the amount of tax corrected and paid in the absence of the monetary reward should be included in the amount of additional tax to be paid to the Plaintiff, and ③ the Plaintiff filed a petition with the purport of requesting an additional tax investigation on the strengthening

On February 3, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on February 3, 2012 that (i) the original monetary reward is based on Article 6(3) of the Regulations on the Payment of Monetary Rewards for Tax Evasion, and there is no problem in the details of the calculation; (ii) the amount of tax reported and paid in the event of the failure to perform the duty to pay a monetary reward pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 of the Regulations on the Payment of Monetary Rewards for Tax Evasion, and (iii) the additional materials are not classified as cumulative management materials pursuant to Articles 9 and 15 of the Regulations on the Settlement of Tax Evasion Report (hereinafter “instant notification”).

C. On May 9, 2012, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant notice, filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection against it, but was dismissed on June 20, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 9, 18, 22 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. The defendant's main defense

1) A civil petition filed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on January 12, 2012 cannot be deemed a lawful application for payment of monetary rewards as a kind of civil petition, and thus, the instant notification, which is merely an answer thereto, cannot be deemed a rejection disposition against the application for payment of monetary rewards.

2) The Defendant conducted a tax investigation according to the Plaintiff’s report on tax evasion, collected the tax evasion amount from non-performance, and notified the Plaintiff of the payment of the monetary reward amounting to KRW 9,168,00 on March 19, 201, and received the monetary reward amounting to KRW 9,168,00. The Plaintiff did not file an objection to the payment of the monetary reward within the statutory period, and thereafter did not go through the pre-trial procedure under Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes until the filing of the instant lawsuit. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is unlawful because the period for filing the

B. Determination

Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides for the payment of monetary rewards for tax evasion reports, does not necessarily mean that specific claims for monetary rewards have been created to the reporter merely by itself, and there are specific claims for monetary rewards only when an administrative agency takes an administrative disposition to pay the subsidies calculated in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes pursuant to the provision of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Accordingly, if an administrative agency decides not to pay monetary rewards upon filing an application for payment of monetary rewards with the administrative agency, the reporter can only file an appeal seeking revocation thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da53775, Apr. 23, 1996).

According to these legal principles, it is not allowed for the Plaintiff to file a lawsuit seeking a monetary reward directly to the Defendant and the amount equivalent to the increased amount. However, in any form, if the Defendant refuses to pay the monetary reward by filing an application for an increase in the monetary reward, the Plaintiff can file an appeal suit seeking its revocation. As seen earlier, examining the authenticity received by the Defendant on January 12, 2012, it can be deemed as a request for increase in the monetary reward payment, and it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s notice of this case is a disposition refusing to pay the monetary reward (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

In addition, the Plaintiff became aware of the instant disposition on February 10, 2012 and filed a request for review thereof with the Board of Audit and Inspection on May 9, 2012, which was up to 90 days from the date when the Plaintiff became aware of the instant disposition. The fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on July 9, 2012 before the lapse of 30 days from the date when the Board of Audit and Inspection rejected the Plaintiff’s request for review on June 20, 2012 does not conflict between the parties, or is significant in this court. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not err by exceeding the period of filing the instant lawsuit or by failing to undergo the prior trial procedure

Therefore, all of the defendant's defenses are without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Since the tax investigation on the plaintiff's report of tax evasion was not conducted properly, the additional tax amount was not calculated properly, so it is necessary to reorganize the monetary reward for tax evasion including all the tax evasion tax amount paid by the plaintiff after the failure to be clarified due to the defendant's false tax investigation.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful and thus should be revoked or must be justified.

2) The defendant's assertion

Article 84-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the tax evasion amount has not been verified due to the failure to conduct a tax investigation is different from the fact, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service may pay a monetary reward not exceeding 100 million won to a person who provides important data in calculating the tax evasion amount for a person who has evaded a tax or the amount of illegally refunded or deducted tax. Therefore, the amount of tax on which the failure to conduct a tax investigation has been reported and paid by himself/herself may not be included in the amount of tax evasion

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 84-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a monetary reward may be paid to a person who provides critical data in calculating the tax evasion amount for a person who has evaded taxes or the amount of tax unjustly refunded or deducted. Article 84-2(2)1 of the same Act and Article 65-4(11) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides for “important data.” In addition, Article 3(1) of the Regulations on the Payment of Monetary Rewards provides for “important data” under Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 3(2) provides that “Any person who has filed a tax base return by the return, taxation data, or other documents submitted by the principal, the other party, or a third party may file a revised tax base return by no later than the expiry of the period pursuant to Article 26-2(1) of the same Act.”

On the other hand, Article 6 of the Regulations on the Payment of Additional Monetary Rewards for Tax Evasion under Article 65-4(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "additional tax amount," which is the standard amount for calculating monetary rewards under Article 65-4(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, shall exclude additional tax, additional tax amount for business customer, and tax

After the plaintiff's tax evasion report, the non-resident, the representative director of the non-resident of the non-resident strengthening, was additionally collected corporate tax of KRW 282,95,410, and the non-party, the non-party, who received the non-resident's income tax of KRW 239,30,00,00, respectively, and the non-party filed revised tax base return on the non-resident's corporate tax under Article 45 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and voluntarily paid the non-resident's corporate tax of KRW 548,48,370. In order to avoid any more punishment, the non-party filed the revised tax base return on the non-resident's corporate tax of the non-resident strengthening and paid the non-resident's corporate tax of KRW 282,95,410 as above. Meanwhile, the defendant decided the corporate tax amount of the non-resident strengthening as the corporate tax amount of KRW 282,95,410, and recognized that the non-resident did not pay the remaining amount to the plaintiff based on the monetary reward.

In light of the relevant provisions, the materials for which the fact of omission was confirmed by the revised tax base return filed by the tax evasion person himself cannot be deemed to constitute “material material” under Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes pursuant to Article 3(2)5 of the Regulations on the Payment of Monetary Rewards for Tax Evasion Report. Therefore, there is no error of law that the Defendant’s exclusion from the above collected tax amount pursuant to Article 6(3)3 of the Regulations on the Payment of Monetary Rewards for Tax Evasion Report from the initial collected tax amount of KRW 282,95,410, which was not included in the amount of voluntary report on non-refluent tax evasion, and the remainder of KRW 188,37,760, except for the additional tax, etc. determined to be excluded from the above collected tax amount pursuant to Article 6(

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims premised on the illegality of the disposition of this case are without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Cho Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)

1) An amount equivalent to 5% of the total amount of the penalty tax of KRW 282,94,810 minus the penalty tax, etc. subject to exclusion from the payment of tax evasion reporting rewards, which is 183,37,760.