Article 81-13 (Confidentiality)

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff

Cheong-gu Office

"A disposition rejecting the disclosure of information on the instant information that the head of ○○ Tax Office made against the Plaintiff on December 4, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the instant information"), among the information listed in the [Attachment I] List against the Plaintiff on December 4, 2015, and the information of this case against the Plaintiff on December 14, 2015, ** a refusal disposition rejecting the disclosure of information on the relevant part, and the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information against the Plaintiff by the head of △△ Tax Office against the Plaintiff on December 21, 2015, respectively."

1. Details of the disposition;

"가. 임**，조**，이**(이하임** 등'이라 한다)은 원고에게부실채권 매입・추심 회사에 투자하면 부실채권을 양도해 주고 매년 투자금의 16 내지 24%에 해당하는 수익배당금을 지급하며，투자금의 반환을 원하면 반환해주겠다'고 거짓말하여 2011. 6. 7.부터 2011. 11. 30.까지 원고로부터 합계 1억 3,000만 원의 투자금을 교부 받았고，그 무렵 위와 같은 방법으로 박** 등 다른 피해자들을 기망하여 투자금을 편취하였다.",나. 원고는 다른 피해자들과 함께 2013. 9. 27. XXXX지방법원 2XXX가합XXXXX호 로 임** 등을 상대로 위 편취금의 반환을 구하는 소를 제기하여 2014. 9. 26. 위 편취금 1억 3,000만 원 및 그 지연손해금의 반환을 명하는 판결을 선고받았고，위 판결 에 대하여 임**가 항소하여 서울고등법원에서 2015. 6. 12. 위 1억 3,000만 원 중 수익금 등의 명목으로 지급받은 24,683,317원을 제외한 나머지 105,316,683원 및 그 지연손해금의 반환을 명하는 판결을 선고받았으며(□□고등법원 2XXX나XXXXX호)，위 판결은 2015. 7. 2. 확정되었다.

C. On the other hand, around May 2012, Park* reported about the suspicion of tax evasion such as *, etc. to △△△ Regional Tax Office, and around that time, the plaintiff also provided related data, and around March 23, 2015 *, etc. investigation was completed as to the suspicion of tax evasion*, etc.

D. On November 27, 2015, the Plaintiff sought information disclosure on the instant information from △△△ Regional Tax Office.

(e) On December 4, 2015, the head of the tax office rejected the disclosure of information on the ground that the information in this case * related part of the information in this case falls under the non-disclosure information provided by Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 9(1)1, 5, and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Information Disclosure Act"), and Article 9(1)1, 5, and 7 of the Act on Public Institutions. On December 14, 2015, the head of the tax office rendered a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information on the ground that the information in this case * related part corresponds to the non-disclosure information provided by Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes * on the ground that the information in this case falls under the non-disclosure information provided by Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 9(1)1, 6, and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Information Disclosure Act").

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The information of this case is not included in the proviso of Article 9 (1) 6 (c) of the Information Disclosure Act and Article 81-13 (1) 7 (b) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which is written by the Defendants directly by the tax authorities, and is not included in the "data submitted by the taxpayers under the main sentence of Article 81-13 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes to meet the tax liability under the tax-related Acts or data acquired on duty to impose and collect national taxes." (2) Even if the information of this case falls under non-disclosure information under the main sentence of Article 81-13 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 81-13 (1) 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that if the information of this case is requested for tax information in accordance with the provisions of other Acts, the information of this case can be provided by taxpayers within the scope of the purpose of use, and the information of this case falls under the proviso of Article 9 (1) 6 (c) and 7 (b) of the Information Disclosure Act.

4) The proviso of Article 9(1)6(c) of the Information Disclosure Act provides that among the information deemed likely to infringe on the privacy or privacy, the information prepared or acquired by a public institution and deemed necessary for the public interest or for the relief of an individual’s rights does not constitute non-disclosure information, and the plaintiff is found to have not been relieved of its rights because it was found that **, etc. did not grasp the property held by another person under the name of another person, and the information in this case should be disclosed as information falling under the proviso of Article 9(1)6(c) of the Information Disclosure Act.

5) The proviso of Article 9 subparagraph 7 (b) of the Information Disclosure Act provides that the information pertaining to the management and trade secrets of corporations, organizations, or individuals, which is acknowledged to be likely to seriously harm the legitimate interests of corporations, etc. when disclosed, which is necessary to be disclosed in order to protect the property or livelihood of the people from illegal and unfair business activities, does not constitute non-disclosure information.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Table 2 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Whether the information constitutes non-disclosure information under Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act and the main sentence of Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

A) Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that any information provided as confidential or confidential matters by other Acts may not be disclosed to the public, and the main text of Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on the National Taxes provides that a tax official shall not provide or divulge data submitted by a taxpayer to fulfill a tax liability under tax-related Acts, or data, etc. acquired on duty to impose and collect national taxes (hereinafter referred to as "tax information") to any other person, or use them for purposes other than the intended purpose, and the proviso of the same Article provides that a tax official shall refuse such a request if a taxpayer is requested to provide tax information in violation of paragraphs (1) and (2).

B) The purpose of Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is to strictly limit the use of taxation information that a tax official acquired from a taxpayer for the purpose of imposing and collecting taxes for any purpose other than the purpose of taxation so that it can protect personal secrets to the maximum extent to enable the taxpayer to perform his/her duty of tax cooperation in good faith, and to ensure that a tax official who is able to obtain important information such as customers related to his/her economic activities, management strategies, financial structure, etc. in the course of his/her business without any restriction, so that it can be disclosed only for the reasons for such exception in order to prevent the infringement of the taxpayer's secrets and the refusal of tax administration. The tax information provided for in Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes falls under the information provided for in other Acts provided for in Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act as confidential or non-disclosure (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du11544, Mar

다) 한편、위 규정의 입법취지나 문언의 표현에 비추어 볼 때，과세정보라고 함은 단순히 납세자로부터 제출받은 자료나 세무공무원이 납세자 등으로부터 취득한 자료만을 의미하는 것이 아니라，세무공무원이 세무관련 업무를 수행하면서 취득한 개별 납세자에 관한 자료 일체를 의미한다 할 것이므로，납세자로부터 제출받은 자료뿐 만 아니라 이러한 서류를 토대로 자신이 스스로 작성・생산한 서류도 모두 포함하는 것이라고 봄이 상당하다.

D) The instant information is related to the Defendants’ property under the Defendants’ taxable object**, etc., and the tax authority’s additional collection and taxation performance, and the tax authority’s investigation results,**, etc. on the suspicion of tax evasion under the latter’s name, and is also related to the investigation results of the tax authority on the suspicion of tax evasion, such as*, etc.*, *, etc. *, inasmuch as the data submitted by the Defendant to fulfill the tax liability under the tax laws are either acquired on duty or based on it for the purpose of imposing or collecting national taxes, all of them are tax information provided under Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and it does not seem to fall under the exception provided under each subparagraph of Article 81-13(1) proviso of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 81-13(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, the Defendants may refuse the disclosure of the instant tax information pursuant to Article

Article 81-13 (1) (c) of the Information Disclosure Act, and Article 81-13 (1) (proviso) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the Plaintiff asserts that the information in this case constitutes an exception to non-disclosure information under the proviso of Article 9(1)6 (c) and Article 9(7)7 (b) of the same Act, and that the provision of tax information should be disclosed pursuant to the proviso of Article 81-13 (1) (proviso) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, with respect to the tax information held by a public institution, the Framework Act on National Taxes, which separates the requirements for non-disclosure and the grounds for exceptions, constitutes a special law governing disclosure of information held by a public institution, and that "where a taxpayer requests tax information pursuant to the provisions of other Acts prescribed in Article 81-13 (1) (proviso) of the Framework Act on National Taxes," which provides that "where a taxpayer requests information necessary for the exercise of his/her right, it shall not constitute an exception to non-disclosure information under the proviso of Article 814 (2).

In light of the purpose of the information disclosure system under Article 1 of the Information Disclosure Act and the legislative intent of the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Information Disclosure Act, "where there is a considerable reason to believe that disclosure under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Information Disclosure Act may seriously obstruct the fair performance of the same kind of duties in the future by comparing and comparing the interests protected by non-disclosure such as the fairness of duties and the interests protected by the disclosure, such as guaranteeing the people's right to know, securing the people's participation in government affairs, and transparency in government affairs, with regard to such determination, a careful decision should be made according to specific matters. In determining, not only the contents of the relevant information subject to request for disclosure but also whether disclosure may seriously interfere with the fair performance of the same duties in the future by disclosing it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du18758, Oct. 11, 2012).

3) Whether the information constitutes a non-disclosure information under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act

The main text of Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that one of the information subject to non-disclosure includes "personal information, such as name, resident registration number, which is included in the information, and whose disclosure is likely to infringe on an individual's privacy or freedom of life if disclosed." In addition to simple personal identification information, the disclosure of personal information, other than personal identification information, includes "information that leads to the disclosure of an individual's secret information, etc., and that could lead to the risk of not being able to lead to free privacy." Meanwhile, the proviso (c) of the same Article provides that "information prepared or acquired by a public institution is excluded from non-disclosure information pursuant to the above provision, which is deemed necessary for protecting the rights of the individual, and the disclosure of information at the same time includes "information that is deemed necessary for protecting the rights of the individual," and the interests protected by the disclosure of personal information such as the right to privacy, such as the protection of rights of the individual, and that the tax authority's name and tax base of the real estate are subject to non-disclosure?

"However, as to whether this case's information constitutes an exception to the above non-disclosure information, the proviso of Article 9 (1) 6 (c) of the Information Disclosure Act excludes "information prepared or acquired by a public institution among personal information that can identify a specific person, which is deemed necessary for the public interest or for the protection of an individual's rights" from non-disclosure information, and the information of this case ***, etc. as information on property under the name of another person ***, etc. *, which is the victim of fraud *, etc. *, etc. *, it is necessary for the plaintiff to disclose it in order to realize the right to request the return of fraudulent money ***, etc. *, which is the perpetrator of the fraud *, etc. * etc. *, among the property of the person who has lent his own name for the concealment of property * even if the details of property falling under the concealed property such as *, etc. are disclosed, it constitutes the result of fraud * the disclosure of the information of this case * it is necessary for the protection of personal rights of the victims 97.

"Management and trade secrets of corporations, etc. which are subject to non-disclosure" under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Information Disclosure Act refer to all information on business activities or all confidential information on business activities, which is reasonable not to be known to others, and the disclosure of which should be determined depending on whether there is a legitimate interest to refuse disclosure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du12303, Jul. 24, 2014)."

5) Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for disclosure of the instant information on the ground that the instant information falls under Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act, Article 81(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.