Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-6207 ( August 10, 2017)

The revocation of a disposition rejecting disclosure of information that has not been held or managed is illegal.

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance) The Defendant’s seeking revocation of a disposition rejecting disclosure of information that was already disclosed, owned, or not managed by the Defendant is illegal as there is no legal interest in seeking revocation thereof.

Article 2 of the Official Information Disclosure Act

Seoul High Court-2017-Nu-73435

AA and 3

BB

National Rotations

2018.07.12

2018.23

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed. 2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Special tax imposed by the defendant from September 26, 2006 to December 5, 2006 by the National Tax Service.

With respect to the case that was completely paid on January 31, 2007 by adding 2.5 billion won to the plaintiffs in the investigation without investigation

The revocation of a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information on each information listed in the separate sheet, which was made to the Plaintiffs on July 5, 2016

(c)

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is that the last 4th of the judgment of the court of first instance is "Seoul Administrative Court", and that "On the other hand, the plaintiffs claim the disclosure of each information listed in the attached list on March 4, 2011, and thus the extinctive prescription is suspended. However, the plaintiffs' claim cannot be viewed as a ground for suspending the extinctive prescription of the right to collect national tax related to the collection of national tax, so the above argument of the plaintiffs is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding "the grounds for suspending the extinctive prescription of the right to collect national tax are without merit." Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as all of the grounds are groundless.