1. On June 5, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the payment of a reward for reporting tax evasion against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 3, 2013 to April 30, 2014, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to B (hereinafter “B”).

On January 2, 2014, when a tax investigation was under way, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant of the fact that B, while delivering products to a transaction entity, such as C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) at the end of the month, B evaded the value-added tax, corporate tax, etc. by means of including them in the sales of the following month, and C et al. B were issued a false tax invoice, but the transaction entity, such as C, was evading the tax by being deducted from the input tax amount as the input

In addition, on January 20, 2014, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant of the purport that the provision on wrongful calculation under the Corporate Tax Act should be applied, because the Plaintiff unfairly reduced the tax burden by selling products at a lower price or at a higher price than the time of supplying products to other trading companies.

B. On June 5, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the materials reported by the Plaintiff do not constitute an important material under Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and that the Plaintiff is not eligible for a monetary reward.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). When the Defendant notifies the result of handling the report on tax evasion, the Defendant stated that “if the informant is not subject to a monetary reward, the report on tax evasion would have been used to impose taxes in accordance with the law and principles,” and if the person is subject to a monetary reward, then the Defendant added a statement that “to notify the applicant of the application for payment of the report on tax evasion separately.”

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 26, 2014, but was dismissed on August 10, 2016.

The plaintiff requested the defendant to conduct a tax investigation again against B and C in the above appeal, but the decision to dismiss this part was made, but in the lawsuit of this case, the disposition of this case is taken.