logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
춘천지방법원 2019.07.02 2019구합50463
행정처분부존재 확인의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 8, 2015, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant that B and C had omitted capital gains tax.

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

On April 25, 2016, the Defendant issued a notice on the result of handling the instant tax evasion report to the effect that “the Plaintiff used the instant information for taxation” and “the instant information on the result of handling the tax evasion report.”

Since the claimant reported the instant tax evasion report and was notified that he/she used the said report for taxation, the claimant made a request for a tax evasion report on the premise of additional tax collection against the person subject to the report, and made a State time to pay the person subject to the report.

C. On May 17, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for a monetary reward for tax evasion with the Defendant as follows:

(hereinafter “Application for the instant monetary reward”). D.

On July 19, 2016, the Defendant rendered the Plaintiff a notice of the result of handling the claim for a tax evasion report as follows:

(hereinafter “instant notification”). As a result of the review of the instant case of a claim for a tax evasion report, it is difficult to inform that the instant case does not constitute “material data” under Article 84-2 (Payment of Monetary Rewards) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and is excluded from the scope of payment of a tax evasion report.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. The defendant's assertion 1) Since the defendant issued a rejection disposition against the plaintiff's application with the notice of this case, the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation of its illegality is unlawful on the premise of the non-existence of the rejection disposition. 2) Since 90 days have passed from the date of the notice of this case, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since the period for filing the

B. 1) In full view of the first argument, including the writing of a complaint and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s confirmation as to whether the omission by the Defendant was unlawful (not seeking Article 4 subparag. 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act), rather than seeking a confirmation as to whether the omission by the Defendant was unlawful, is null and void.