1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 25, 2015 to September 6, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a tax evasion report with the Defendant to the effect that: (a) the Plaintiff received the price for the supply of bricks in cash from the reported person; and (b) the reported person received the price for the supply of bricks by cash; and (c) the Plaintiff is evading the return of value-added taxes.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant report on tax evasion”). B.

From August 24, 2016 to September 9, 2016, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the reported person, and confirmed that there was an omission in the reported amount of sales and imposed additional value-added tax on the reported person.

Then, on January 10, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the tax evasion reporting that the Plaintiff received the said taxation in accordance with the Plaintiff’s information.

C. On April 13, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant report on the instant tax evasion was not subject to a monetary reward because it did not fall under the case of informing the Plaintiff of important data.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant on May 22, 2017, but was dismissed on June 12, 2017, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 24, 2017 and September 15, 2017. However, the Plaintiff was dismissed on November 20, 2017.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 2, 3, 8, and Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3]

2. The Plaintiff’s summary of the instant report on tax evasion included a transaction account to verify the unreported income, and the Defendant was able to impose additional taxation on the person subject to the instant report by undergoing a tax investigation in accordance with the instant report on tax evasion, and thus, the instant report on tax evasion constitutes a case where the information on “material material material” was reported.

Nevertheless, the Defendant deemed that the instant report on the instant tax evasion does not constitute a case where material information was reported, and paid a monetary reward to the Plaintiff.