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

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or recognized by each entry in Gap evidence 3:

A. On October 14, 2004, the Plaintiff collected 1,236,685,00 won in total, including corporate tax and additional tax, etc., for the Defendant’s tax evasion to the Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “non-party company”) that he reported his tax evasion (hereinafter “non-party company”), pursuant to the provisions of Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, applied for the payment of rewards for tax evasion information to him pursuant to the provisions of Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. The Defendant reported to the Plaintiff on the 18th of the same month. The details reported by the Plaintiff are not subject to criminal investigation under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. The amount of rewards for tax evasion information under the provisions of Article 16-2 of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders is not subject to the payment of rewards for tax evasion information under the provisions of Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, the details of the Plaintiff’s tax evasion information are not subject to the tax evasion amount, 200300 billion won for tax evasion information.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition shall be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) On May 13, 2004, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant of the non-party company’s tax evasion information on the Internet, and accurately recorded the location at which the non-party company’s tax evasion site (the ○○○○○○○○○ Dong, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○) was located, and thereafter confirmed specific information that could identify the whereabouts of material material about the non-party company’s tax evasion facts, such as the details, methods, scale, computerized books, location of the place of business, status of the place of business, etc.

(2) The Defendant: (a) determined the details of the Plaintiff’s information as an important material and collected the tax evasion of KRW 1,236,685,00 on the basis of such determination; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of the results of the tax investigation. This is the conclusion of the contract under the Civil Act with the Plaintiff; (c) As such, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the monetary reward of KRW 62,678,180 and the natural interest thereon in accordance with Article 84-4

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-1, 2, and 3.

(1) On May 13, 2004, the Plaintiff recruited a subscriber to the Defendant through the National Tax Service Internet homepage, through which the Plaintiff made a tax evasion report (hereinafter referred to as the “information of this case”) with the following contents as to the non-party company. The (a) Non-party Company has invested a certain amount of at least one million won, i.e., a certain amount of at least 70% of the face value of the product, i.e., a point up to a certain amount of 1 million won when the product is set aside, i.e., a approximately KRW 1 million when the product is set aside, 250% of the face value ( approximately KRW 2,500,000) for at least 60 days after 21 days to return the same amount of 00 won every day to the ○○○.” Since the de facto sales is more than one billion won, the company has to make a 100 billion won increase in the amount of interest income to be sold to the non-party company.

(C) The amount so sold is 30 billion won per month of 1 billion Won per day. If a fact occurs, value-added tax should be paid in the month of that fact. The payment of value-added tax shall be conducted in one month, and the method of securing claims shall be conducted by investigating whether such sale was made or not.

(D) In doing so, it is highly probable that the processing tax invoice may be requested by the manufacturer or supplier to evade taxes. This is likely to cause the process of distribution to be investigated.

(E) Nonparty Company: (a) 70% of the total investment cost of KRW 1 million (700,000, namely, KRW 700,000,00 won at a point of 2.50%; (b) 10% of the cost of the relevant goods; (c) 10% of the cost of the relevant goods; and (d) 300,000 won of the relevant goods; and (e) 250% of the principal and interest are to be paid to Nonparty Company. In short, it is not possible for the Company to file a long-term support for the Company to pay the principal and interest

(F) A person who made an investment in the non-party company will distort the general distribution market, handle the products of the non-party company with no dumping, and give 80% points as if he received fake goods from the company. In such a case, it is a bond company that considers it as being a substitute goods.

(2) In the process of receiving and examining the Plaintiff’s above information, the Defendant confirmed that the non-party company’s name, place of business, and representative had been changed to six or more years between the two years, and determined to conduct a detailed investigation on the amount of income by considering that the non-party company was suspected of having omitted sales, and that there was a suspicion of having reported the non-party company to conduct a detailed investigation on the amount of income in light of the following: (a) the value-added tax base for the same period (the value-added tax base for January 1, 2003, KRW 878,000,000, KRW 10,0000, KRW 815,000,000, KRW 2003, KRW 8,435,000, KRW 00.

(3) Around July 2004, the Defendant investigated the internal sales management system of the company and confirmed the details of the first installment of 2003 and 2004 recorded in the computer. Based on this, the Defendant imposed and collected KRW 1,236,685,00 on and from the non-party company for the second half of 2003 corporate tax, KRW 74,545,000, value-added tax for the second half of 2003, KRW 272,107,00, and value-added tax for the first half of 2004, KRW 1,236,685,00 for the first half of 204.

(4) On August 16, 2004, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the tax investigation and the results of the treatment thereof, and did not accept the Plaintiff’s application for payment of monetary rewards on October 18, 2004 as seen earlier.

D. Determination

(1) Determination as to the assertion of the above A. (1)

(A) According to the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service may pay a bounty to a person who provides important data in calculating the amount of tax evasion or the amount of tax unjustly refunded or deducted (excluding the case where monetary rewards are paid under Article 16 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act). "Important data" means ① Specific data or books that contain the details of tax evasion or illegally refunded or deducted, such as customers, the date or period of the transaction, the items of the transaction, the volume and amount of the transaction, etc. (excluding those which are deemed to have no practical benefits due to the taxpayer's dishonor, closure or bankruptcy, etc. at the time of the submission of such data, ② Specific information that can identify the whereabouts of such data, ③ or other material that can be acknowledged as important data that can be acknowledged as having no substantial benefits due to the taxpayer's unlawful tax evasion or deduction, ③ Specific data related to the taxpayer's tax evasion or other material that can be identified as material that can be identified as material to the taxpayer, such as tax evasion or deduction, and ③ Specific data related to the amount of tax evasion or deduction, etc.

(C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with important information about the tax evasion stipulated in the relevant statutes is without merit.

(2) Determination as to the assertion of the above A. (2)

(A) The purport of the provisions on the payment of rewards to a tax evasion information provider under the Framework Act on National Taxes is to: (a) if the tax office provides specific data, such as transaction books, which enable the insiders, etc., who are well aware of the fact of tax evasion, to verify the details of tax evasion, under the realistic circumstances where it is unable to investigate whether all taxpayers are faithfully liable to pay taxes; (b) from the viewpoint of the tax office, the tax office can additionally collect the amount of tax evaded easily without conducting a tax investigation that requires considerable costs and efforts; (c) thus, the payment of rewards to the informants who meet certain requirements in terms of compensation for the reduction of such expenses; and (d)

(B) However, even if the defendant collected taxes from the non-party company by punishing the tax investigation upon the plaintiff's information, as seen earlier, insofar as the details of the plaintiff's information do not fall under "important data, etc. prescribed by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes", the plaintiff could not obtain the right to claim payment of rewards pursuant to the Framework Act on National Taxes. As long as it fails to meet the requirements for receiving rewards, the issue of whether to apply the legal principles on the contract for prize advertising under the Civil Act to the claim does not affect the legitimacy of the disposition of this case."

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.