logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.01.24 2018구합2377
직무감찰개시 의무이행 청구 거부처분 취소
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 25, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a civil petition (hereinafter “instant civil petition”) with the purport that “The welfare points that public officials received each year are earned income subject to tax law but did not report income at the time of year-end settlement, thereby evading tax or committing corruption of about KRW 3.20 billion, and even at the request of the National Tax Service, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, the Board of Strategy and Finance, and the Board of Audit and Inspection, etc. to resolve such welfare points, the Plaintiffs filed a civil petition with the same content as C on June 8, 2017 and August 3, 2017, and filed a civil petition with the same content as C on September 12, 2017.

B. On October 10, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a claim with the Defendant to the effect that “the President of the Presidential Secretariat, in relation to the instant civil petition, shall commence the duties of the National Tax Service, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, the Board of Strategy and Finance, the Board of Audit and Inspection, conduct direct investigation, or order the Prime Minister to take lawful administrative disposition and corrective measures within this year by ordering the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, the Board of Audit and Inspection, or the Prime Minister to take any measures (hereinafter “instant petition for adjudication”).

C. On December 6, 2017, the Defendant may only file a claim with an administrative agency for a certain disposition against rejection disposition or omission. However, according to the result of an administrative appeal, the Plaintiffs’ interests are merely a general and indirect interest derived from the achievement of the public interest of increasing tax revenues, and thus, the Plaintiffs do not have the standing to seek a trial for performance of obligations, and the amount of omission subject to a trial for performance of obligations has the legal obligation to make a certain disposition against a party’s application within a reasonable period of time.

arrow