It is difficult to see that the report of this case's tax evasion corresponds to the provision of material information.

Since the report of this case's tax evasion can confirm the omission and the tax evasion amount by confirming the related data already submitted to the tax authorities, it is difficult to see that it falls under the provision of material.

Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012Guhap2563 Revocation of revocation of revocation

OO

Head of the Jeonju Tax Office

November 27, 2012

December 11, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on June 21, 2012 against the plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 1, 2010, the Plaintiff sent a tax evasion notice to the Head of the Changwon Tax Office on the suspicion of tax evasion (hereinafter referred to as “instant report on tax evasion”) stating that “The head of the Changwon Tax Office, who purchased 20 apartment bonds without paying the down payment only to the construction company that is a seller, sold it to a third party and did not pay capital gains tax even after taking profits equivalent to the difference,” and on December 2, 2010, the head of the Changwon Tax Office transferred the Plaintiff’s above information to the Defendant, who is the competent government office.

B. On the basis of the above report on tax evasion, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the above Park DoD in around 201, and collected tax evasion amount from Park DoD, and notified the Plaintiff of the result of tax evasion reporting that the information was processed as "use of taxation" on January 1, 201.

C. On February 7, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Defendant on the grounds that the details, such as the details of the violation or estimated tax amount, were omitted in the notification of the result of handling the above tax evasion reporting, and the Defendant sent the same day to the Plaintiff on the same day, stating that “tax information shall not be disclosed pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the details of the Plaintiff’s notification were excluded from the payment of the reward because it does not fall under “important information” under Article 3 of the Regulations on the Payment of the Monetary Rewards for Tax Evasion Report” (hereinafter “the reply

D. On February 28, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant to disclose the number of tax evasion items and the date and amount of tax evasion collected, the amount of tax collected, the procedure and schedule for subsequent treatment, etc. based on the Plaintiff’s tax evasion notice, and the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff on March 10, 2011, stating that “the information the Plaintiff requested to disclose is the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)1 of the Official Information Disclosure Act and Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes” (hereinafter referred to as “the response on March 10, 2011”).

E. On June 12, 2012, the Plaintiff again filed a civil petition with the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) on June 13, 2012, the Plaintiff disclosed the omission tax amount, details of additional collection, etc., the result of the Plaintiff’s tax evasion report; and (b) on June 13, 2012, the Defendant sent a reply to the Plaintiff on the following grounds: “The part of the information disclosure claim is subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act and Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; (c) the Plaintiff’s report on tax evasion does not constitute “important information as stipulated in Article 3 of the Regulations on the Payment of Monetary Rewards for Tax Evasion” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-speed facts, evidence A through 4, and evidence A through 7, and evidence B 1 to 5, and evidence B 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As to the part of the instant disposition rejecting the disclosure of information

The purport of the provision of Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is not to keep the results of all tax audits confidential, and to disclose the details of omissions and estimated tax amounts to the reporting party with respect to the tax evasion case, the presumption of which has been completed after the tax investigation, is not contrary to the purport of the provision, and thus, the defendant's disposition of this case which

2) Claim as to the unpaid portion of the instant disposition

The instant report on tax evasion provided to the Defendant constitutes an important data on the real estate speculation in ParkD, and the Defendant’s disposition is unlawful, provided that the said report does not meet the requirements for payment of a reward for tax evasion under the Framework Act on National Taxes.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Whether the disposition in the instant case is minor as to refusal to disclose information

A) According to Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act, and Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the information provided as confidential or confidential matters may not be disclosed to the public. Meanwhile, according to Article 81-13(1) of the same Act, a tax official shall not provide or divulge data that a taxpayer submits to fulfill his/her tax liability under tax-related Acts, or data acquired in the course of business for the purpose of imposing and collecting national taxes (hereinafter referred to as "tax information") to any other person, or shall not use such data for any purpose other than the original purpose. Article 81-13 of the same Act provides that a tax official shall refuse to provide tax information if the tax official is requested to do so in violation of the above provision. The duty to maintain tax information provided for in the above Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes includes data that a taxpayer has acquired from the taxpayer for the purpose of imposing and collecting the tax for any purpose other than the purpose of taxation, and the purpose of the above provision is to ensure that the taxpayer is able to faithfully and cooperate in tax payment, and the tax information provided for the taxpayer.

B) We look at the instant case, and the Plaintiff’s detailed details, such as the tax evasion tax amount that the Plaintiff requested to disclose to the Defendant, and the date of collection and additional collection tax amount, etc. fall under all the taxation information stipulated in Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and there is no data that can be viewed as falling under the grounds for taxation information provision stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 81-13(1) of the same Act in this case, and it is deemed as non-disclosure information pursuant to Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act.

2) Whether the portion not paid out of the instant disposition is lawful

A) According to Article 84-2 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a financial reward shall be paid to a person who provides material necessary to calculate the tax evasion amount to a person who has omitted, and "important material" under Article 84-2 (2) 1 of the same Act means material that contains specific facts such as the date or period of transaction that can verify the details of the tax evasion or illegally refunded or deducted, the transaction items, the transaction amount and the amount of transaction (excluding those that are deemed to have no real income due to the taxpayer's default, closure, bankruptcy, etc. at the time of the submission of data, and those that are under investigation) (a) and (b) other material that can be considered as material to identify the location of the material falling under subparagraph 1 of the same Article such as tax evasion or illegally deducted, and (c) other material that can be considered as material to recognize that it falls under any of the above Article 65-4 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and (c) other material related to tax evasion and other material related to tax evasion (3).

B) On the other hand, we examine the above case, and examine the following circumstances that can be recognized by considering the circumstances of the tax evasion under subparagraph 1 and the overall purport of the entries and arguments in subparagraph 2, and ① in order to receive a reward under Article 84-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, 'material' should be offered to the tax authorities to calculate the tax evasion amount for those who have evaded taxes, and the plaintiff 20 apartment houses unsold in lots were sold in lots to a third party and did not pay capital gains tax accordingly, it is hard to find that the taxpayer's 20 apartment houses unsold in lots were acquired financial benefits and did not pay capital gains tax, and the taxpayer's 20 related books submitted to the tax evasion office can be found to have failed to provide material for the reason that the taxpayer's tax evasion purpose is to identify the illegality of the above tax processing, and 2.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.