1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

A. On April 2, 2013, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant of the act of tax evasion to the effect that “B, C (former trade name: D: hereinafter “C”; E(hereinafter “E”); and F (hereinafter “E”), the said reported person evaded corporate tax and personal income tax by appropriating processing benefits using the borrowed account and raising funds.”

At that time, the Plaintiff additionally informed that “A’s shareholders on the C’s list of shareholders are next shareholders who trusted B’s name, and were evading the relevant tax through the borrowed name management of shares.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant information”) B.

After investigating C, etc. from June 19, 2013 to August 30, 2013 (hereinafter “instant investigation”), the Defendant extracted the cause of processing benefits, underreporting of stock transfer income, real estate acquisition funds, and stock title trust, etc., and imposed corporate tax, transfer income tax, gift tax, etc. on the subjects based on the aforementioned investigation findings.

C. On May 11, 2017, the Defendant sent a notice on the application for payment of KRW 14,206,00 to the Plaintiff for a tax evasion report following the instant information.

On May 17, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for the payment of monetary rewards in accordance with the above guidance, and received full payment from the Defendant on June 1, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant monetary reward” and “instant disposition”) D.

On August 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a trial stating that “The instant monetary reward is less than the monetary reward and the legitimate monetary reward shall be calculated at least KRW 800,000,000 for the omission of capital gains tax related to the instant information and KRW 500,000 for the gift tax.” However, on November 3, 2017, the Plaintiff was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on a request for a trial

In the event that there is no dispute (applicable to recognition), Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleading ex officio as to whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate.