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

A. On December 11, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) established a tombstone and sold it in lots by the Kanyang-gu Kanyang-gu BB Association 278-5 (hereinafter “AAAB Association”); and (b) reported tax evasion to the National Tax Service. On December 1, 2008, the Defendant conducted an investigation into the AAB Association; (c) conducted an investigation into the said church; and (d) imposed corporate tax on the said church KRW 447,736,810 for the business year 2004, corporate tax of KRW 438,425,30 for the business year 2005, corporate tax of KRW 435,349,830 for the business year 206, total amount of KRW 1,621,51,940 for the business year 2006.

B. After December 3, 2008, the defendant notified the plaintiff on December 3, 2008 that the taxation on the AAB shall not be subject to a monetary reward because of the difference between the tax accounting and the corporate accounting (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case").

C. On December 24, 2008, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on December 24, 2008, and the Defendant asserted that additional data provided by the Plaintiff is not "important data" under Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Accordingly, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff's request on April 10, 2009, recognizing that the above additional reasons exist

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 through 6, Eul 1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

(a) Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On December 11, 2007 and January 14, 2008, the Plaintiff reported to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, on two occasions, the following information about the AAD Council (hereinafter “instant information”).

(A) The payment relationship of the tax amount on the income amount is unclear from the time when the AAD Association received a charnel to the present day.

(B) The consumer price of the charnel period sold in lots by the AAccom Association is KRW 2.2 million for each individual, and the husband and wife is KRW 3.8 million for each period - 4.5 million for each period. Charnel facilities are presumed to have KRW 34,640 for each period. The number of the charnel periods sold in lots after the Accom Association was taken over is approximately KRW 3,000 for each period.

(C) ① After having taken over a charnel, whether AAD Association has operated a business after reporting its business registration and the commencement of its business in addition to the identification number certificate; ② from June 30, 2004 after acquiring a charnel house to June 30, 2004, sold a few of the period of a charnels, ③ whether the period of a charnel has been sold in lots for each quarter, ④ if there is a seller of a sale in lots in connection with the sale in lots, the business owner is found to have been omitted by tracing each business owner.

(D) On December 11, 2007, the Plaintiff submitted a private charnel permit, a written approval for the use of a charnel house, a certificate for the establishment of a religious organization and a charnel house, a certificate of sale price, a certificate of business registration for a religious association, a certificate of business registration for a religious association, a certificate of business registration for the preliminary assembly of a foundation, a certificate of the unique number of a foundation, a charnel house, a charnel house drawings, a photo, a certificate of registration for a Korean Buddhist Maracsium. On January 4, 2008, the Plaintiff submitted a document related to the AAG website, a business registration certificate for the AAG, a certificate of business registration for the AAG, a charnel house drawings, a membership subscription, a written contract for the establishment of a charnel, and other newspaper data.

(2) On January 4, 2008, the defendant submitted to the plaintiff the data alone, so it is difficult to process the documents submitted by the plaintiff to the plaintiff. Thus, it is demanded to request that "to submit relevant documents, such as records of sale, which can identify the fact of tax evasion regarding the suspected tax evasion, until January 18, 2008," and the plaintiff submitted a list of buyers on January 14, 2008, the list of buyers, the data of sale in lots (from November 10, 2004 to February 22, 2005) and other newspaper data.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 7, 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

C. Determination

(1) According to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service may pay a bounty within the scope of KRW 100 million to a person who provides important data in calculating the amount of tax evasion or the amount of tax unjustly refunded or deducted (excluding a person who has received a bounty under Article 16 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act) (the main sentence of Article 84-2 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9259 of Dec. 26, 2008). "Important data" refers to (1) material or books that clearly indicate the details of tax evasion or illegally refunded or deducted, such as the place of transaction, the date or transaction, the transaction items, the transaction volume and the amount, etc. (excluding those deemed to have no benefit from taxation due to the taxpayer's dishonor, closure, bankruptcy, etc.) or (2) material that can verify the whereabouts of such material, or (3) material that can be acknowledged as being related to tax evasion and tax evasion in light of the circumstances of the amount of tax evasion or illegally refunded or deduction under paragraph (2).

(2) According to the above facts, the contents reported by the plaintiff to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service (the defendant within the country) are likely to cause tax evasion while running a charnel sales business, and the materials submitted along with the results are merely to confirm that the AAA church is conducting a charnel sales business, and it cannot be deemed that the contents contain important materials prescribed by the relevant statutes, i.e., material that can confirm the details of the tax evasion of the AA church, i.e., the transaction date or transaction period, transaction items, transaction volume, and amount, or specific information that can confirm the location of such material.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s proposal is without merit, which was made by the Plaintiff to provide the Defendant with important information on the tax evasion stipulated in the relevant laws and regulations.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.