2017Du49652 Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Information Disclosure

A Organization A

Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Commissioner of the National Tax Service

Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Jong-sik, Kim Jong-woo, Lee Young-han, Lee Dong-dong

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Du76086 Decided May 18, 2017

May 14, 2020

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent that the grounds of appeal are supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Details of the decision not to disclose;

(a) HF funds are currently in progress by filing an application for arbitration against Korea with the International Investment Dispute Settlement Center (ICSD), which is an international arbitration body, on the ground of a violation of the Agreement on the Mutual Promotion and Protection of Investment between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Belgium-Luxembourg (hereinafter referred to as the “Investment Agreement”) on November 21, 2012.

B. On May 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Minister of Justice for disclosure of the international arbitration case (ICSID No. B. hereinafter referred to as the “instant international arbitration case”) filed against the Republic of Korea (ICSID) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant claim”). On June 2015, the Minister of Justice disclosed only “the actual total amount of the claim claimed by the applicant” on the ground that the Plaintiff’s request was made for disclosure of the information and documents containing the information, and on August 2015, 2015, the amount of the claim is USD 4.677 billion,95 million, and the amount of the claim is KRW 10,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000).

2. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "information specified as confidential or confidential in accordance with any other Act or any order issued under any other Act shall be one of the information subject to non-disclosure, and Article 81-13(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 15220, Dec. 12, 197; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "in the main text, a tax official shall not provide or divulge to any third party the data that a taxpayer has submitted to fulfill his/her duty payment obligation under tax-related Acts and subordinate statutes, and shall not use the data, etc. acquired on duty for the purpose of imposing and collecting national taxes (hereinafter referred to as "excess information")" in the proviso that provides for the principle of non-disclosure in cases where a taxpayer may provide tax information exceptionally.

B. The lower court determined that: (a) the information provided by the main sentence of Article 81-13(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes constitutes “information provided as confidential or confidential matters by other Acts” under Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du11544, Mar. 12, 2004); (b) the key issue information is the sum of the amount of damages claimed and claimed by the applicant in the international arbitration case of this case, which the Republic of Korea imposes on the applicant and the list of the applicants requesting it; and (c) the aggregate amount of the amount of taxes and source tax collected by the applicant is not the list of the applicants requesting it; and even if the sum of the amount of taxes and source tax collected by each applicant is disclosed, it is difficult to view that the information at issue falls under the tax information by the applicant, and there is no other evidence as to the fact that the information at issue constitutes the tax information.

C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, although there are somewhat inappropriate parts in the reasoning of the lower court, the lower court’s decision denying the application of Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act is justifiable, and there was no error by misapprehending the legal principles on taxation information under the main sentence of Article 81-13(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, etc.

In light of the circumstances as stated in the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the key information cannot be seen as falling under "information concerning diplomatic relations, etc. as stipulated in Article 9 (1) 2 of the Information Disclosure Act, which, if disclosed, is deemed likely to seriously undermine the national interest, or "information which, if disclosed, is deemed likely to seriously undermine the legitimate interests of corporations, etc." as stated in Article 9 (1) 7 of the same Act. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of Article 9 (1) 2 and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

4. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 3

For the same reason as the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that arbitral proceedings do not correspond to the "judgment" under Article 9 (1) 4 of the Information Disclosure Act. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of each subparagraph of Article 9 (1) 4 of the Information Disclosure Act.

5. Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed and the cost of appeal is borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Noh Tae-tae

Justices Kim Jae-hyung

Justices Min You-sook of the District Court

Justices Lee Dong-won