Seoul East East District Court-2015-Seo-89487 (Law No. 16, 2016)

The date on which a notice on application for payment of tax evasion reporting is fixed shall not be deemed the payment deadline of the reward.

Even if the head of a tax office provides a notice on the application for payment of tax evasion reporting rewards and states "the date on which the payment becomes final and conclusive", it is only the time to pay the reward, and it cannot be deemed that the deadline for payment of the reward has been fixed. Therefore, it is not recognized that the claim for damages due to the delay in the payment of the reward

Payment of rewards under Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2016Na23832 Compensation for Damages

Maap○

Korea

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2015 Ghana89487 Decided May 26, 2016

December 14, 2016

January 11, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10,312,280 won with 6% interest per annum from May 23, 2014 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 18, 2010, the Plaintiff reported ○○○○○ Group’s tax evasion related to ○○○○ Group’s non-funds. Accordingly, the National Tax Service collected 23.198 billion won from ○○ Group.

B. On October 4, 2011, the director of the ○○ Tax Office sent a notice of application for payment of a monetary reward stating that “the date when the payment becomes final and conclusive” to the Plaintiff was “ July 20, 2011.”

C. The Plaintiff filed an application with the head of ○○ Tax Office for payment of a monetary reward for information on tax evasion, and received a total of KRW 100 million over two occasions through the following process.

1) On October 27, 2011, the head of the ○○ Tax Office decided and paid the Plaintiff a monetary reward of KRW 21,990,000 (hereinafter “the instant first monetary reward”).

2) On December 23, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial (trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial decision on October 18, 2012. On February 13, 2013, the Plaintiff again filed a request for a trial (trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial trial 00000) and the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to pay a reward by re-audit on April 29, 2014.

3) On May 23, 2014, the head of the ○○ Tax Office paid additional monetary rewards of KRW 78,010,000 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the second monetary reward”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The notice of the application for payment of a tax evasion report (Evidence A No. 4) sent by the head of the tax office to the Plaintiff on July 20, 201. As such, the payment date of the second reward of this case should have been determined until July 20, 201. At the latest, the second reward of this case should have been paid by the end of the following month after July 20, 201. However, the second reward of this case should have been paid on May 23, 2014 as the tax Tribunal went beyond the time limit for the handling of the relevant provisions. The tax Tribunal violated Article 65 of the Framework Act on National Taxes that should be decided within 90 days, while the tax official violates Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the tax official shall faithfully observe the limit generally deemed reasonable in light of the equity of taxation and the purpose of the relevant tax law. Accordingly, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the damages incurred by the second reward of this case and the damages incurred by delay to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 19 of the Civil Act.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 84-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 2011) and Article 65-4(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23592, Feb. 2, 2012) provide that “it may be possible to pay a monetary reward.” Therefore, in accordance with the above provision, it cannot be deemed that a specific claim has occurred to a provider of data, and further, the payment period of the monetary reward is not fixed. Each of the above provisions provides that “The payment may still be made” regardless of several amendments thereafter.

Article 84-2(6) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 65-4(17) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provide that the payment of rewards for reporting tax evasion (No. 1865 of the National Tax Service Directive, Jun. 30, 2010), which is delegated under Article 7 of the former Regulations on the Payment of Rewards for Tax Evasion (No. 1865 of the National Tax Service Directive), shall be made after the determination of the period for payment of rewards, which is not the first time for the payment of rewards. Article 8(3) of the above Directive of the National Tax Service provides that the person in charge of reporting tax evasion shall inform the informant of the application for payment of rewards when the period for payment of rewards under Article 7 becomes final and conclusive, and the payment of rewards cannot be seen as the payment of rewards by the last day of the 20th anniversary of the date for payment of rewards determined by the National Tax Service.

Article 65 applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 81 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the Tax Tribunal shall make a decision within 90 days of the determination of the adjudication, but this is deemed a provision of decoration notwithstanding the relevant law. Therefore, the mere fact that the Tax Tribunal made a decision beyond the above deadline for the plaintiff's request for adjudication cannot be immediately deemed unlawful, and no other evidence exists to acknowledge that the relevant public official violated Article 19 of the Framework Act on National Taxes by performing his/her duties beyond

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion and thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.