1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 17, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on September 28, 2012 with respect to five parcels, other than 113,925 square meters of C Forest land (hereinafter “instant land”) on September 28, 2012, the Plaintiff reported the sales price to KRW 5.48 billion for the purpose of evading capital gains tax and acquisition tax, and subsequently evaded taxes such as capital gains tax on KRW 90 million (hereinafter “instant report on tax evasion”).

B. On October 28, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of handling tax evasion reports stating that “the report on tax evasion submitted on June 17, 2013 was used for taxation in accordance with the law and principles, and the details of specific processing, such as the amount of additional tax imposed on the reporter, shall not be disclosed pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act and Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.”

C. On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to be notified of the result of the disposition taken against the Plaintiff’s application for the payment of monetary rewards in writing, and on the same day, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the disposition on tax evasion reporting to the effect that “the Plaintiff’s report on tax evasion submitted is not subject to monetary rewards under Article 84-2

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal for a trial on November 19, 2013. However, on March 31, 2014, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the application for a local tax evasion report, and dismissed the part on the application for a capital gains tax evasion report.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, Eul evidence No. 2 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s claim 1 procedural defect did not present the specific grounds for the instant disposition, thereby violating Article 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act.