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

A. On April 27, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of the first and second half-year return of the value-added tax (hereinafter “instant information”) on April 27, 201, as a taxi engineer belonging to BB Taxi Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B taxi”).

B. However, on May 3, 2011, the Defendant rejected disclosure of the instant information with respect to the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant information was subject to non-disclosure 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 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Eul evidence 1, evidence 2-1, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant asserts to the purport that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since the disposition of this case also constitutes "dispositions under the Framework Act on National Taxes or other tax laws," and "dispositions under the Framework Act on National Taxes or other tax laws," which are provided for in Article 55 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and that the lawsuit of this case is not governed by tax laws, and as seen earlier, it constitutes a disposition based on the Information Disclosure Act on the grounds that it is not subject to non-disclosure, and it constitutes a disposition based on the Information Disclosure Act on the grounds that administrative agencies' refusal to exercise public authority as a law enforcement with regard to specific facts, and thus,

B. In addition, the Defendant asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful, since it did not go through a request for examination or adjudgment, which is a necessary pre-trial procedure as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, as seen earlier, the instant disposition is not a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes, etc. that requires a necessary pre-trial procedure

4. Whether the disposition is lawful.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The amount of value-added tax reduced for the second period of 2010 for 2010 for BB-si operating the 170 taxi is the additional payment (referred to as mentioned below) after the settlement of the amount of value-added tax reduced for each person for the second period of 2010 for BB-si operating the 50 taxi as an affiliated company, and the size of BB-si operating the 50 taxi and only 1/3 of BB-si operating the 1/2 of BB-si operating the 1/3 of the value-added tax reduced for the same taxable period of BB-si operating the 1/2 of the additional payment after the settlement of the advance payment for the 365.8329 won for the payment of the value-added tax reduced for the same taxable period, and the unit price stated in the inspection (verification) on the actual use of value-added tax reduced for B-si operating the 359.5369 Na, the information of B-si operating the 1/200 of the 20 tax information disclosure need not be made public.

B. Determination

(1) The main text of Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that information pertaining to the management and trade secrets of corporations, organizations, or individuals, which, if disclosed, may seriously undermine legitimate interests of corporations, etc. shall be excluded from information subject to non-disclosure. The proviso and Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that the above information shall be excluded from information subject to non-disclosure if it falls under the information that needs to be disclosed in order to protect the property or life of the people from unlawful and unfair business activities. In addition, Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act provides that the information held and managed by public institutions shall not be disclosed, but the information under each subparagraph shall be classified as confidential or non-disclosure information pursuant to other Acts or subordinate statutes delegated under subparagraph 1 and Article 81-13(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall not be provided to the taxpayer, and the taxpayer shall not be provided with information under the proviso to Article 18(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act, and the taxpayer shall not be provided with information subject to non-disclosure under the proviso to Article 9(13).

(2) In addition, there is no dispute over health care, or there is an additional payment of the value-added tax after the plaintiff's prior settlement of the tax base for the following circumstances, i.e., additional payment of the tax after the plaintiff's prior settlement of the tax base (hereinafter "additional payment") that the amount of value-added tax is calculated by deducting the amount already paid when the reduced amount of value-added tax is determined on monthly basis after the amount of value-added tax was calculated, the additional payment shall be made if there is an additional amount. Although the total amount of value-added tax paid for 11271,417, and 108 won which was paid for 200,000 won for each person, and about 83,00,000 won for the two-year amount for the above tax base, it is difficult to recognize that the total amount of value-added tax paid for 10,000 won for the above tax base, and about 87,800,000 won for the two-year amount for the above tax base.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act, and thus, the instant disposition refusing to disclose is lawful.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as there is no ground.