Busan District Court Decision 2011Guhap4115 ( December 09, 2011)

Taxation data are information prescribed as confidential or non-disclosure information under the Framework Act on National Taxes, which constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act.

The instant information constitutes taxation data based on the data submitted by XXsi to fulfill its duty to pay tax under the Value-Added Tax Act, and the Defendant, a public agency, can refuse disclosure of the instant information to the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant information is taxation data.

Article 81 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012Nu195. Dismissal of an objection to the disclosure of information about the details of the value-added tax return

XX

Head of Suwon Tax Office

Busan District Court Decision 2011Guhap4115 Decided December 9, 2011

May 4, 2012

May 25, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information made to the plaintiff on May 3, 2011.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 27, 2011, the Plaintiff is a taxi engineer belonging to the XXsi (hereinafter referred to as the “Psi”) and the representative of the Jeon City City Labor Union’s Labor Union, comprised of employees belonging to the said company, requesting the Defendant to disclose the details of each value-added tax return for the first and second years of 2010 of the said company (hereinafter referred to as the “information of this case”). However, on May 3, 2011, the Defendant refused disclosure of the information of this case on the ground that the information of this case was subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)1 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter referred to as the “information of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Private theory without dispute, Eul evidence, 1 of the second floor, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Details of the defense prior to the merits

1) Article 55(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a request for examination, a request for adjudication, or an administrative litigation may be lodged with respect to a disposition that is illegal or unreasonable as a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or the tax-related Acts, while Article 55(5) Subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that a disposition against an objection (excluding a request for examination or a request for adjudication against

However, the decision to dismiss an objection to the disclosure of information on the details of the value-added tax return is not a "disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or tax laws" under Article 55 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2) Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that an administrative litigation may not be initiated unless a decision on a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes is made. Meanwhile, Articles 61(2) and 68(2) of the same Act provide that where a request for examination or adjudgment is filed after filing an objection, a request for examination or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days from the date the decision on the

However, the Plaintiff, after receiving the instant disposition, filed an objection against the Defendant on June 3, 201 and received a decision to dismiss the objection from the Defendant on June 3, 201, and immediately filed the instant lawsuit without filing a request for examination or adjudgment within 90 days thereafter. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. Determination

The defendant's prior defenses on the merits are based on the premise that the lawsuit in this case is an administrative litigation filed as a means of appeal against "disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or the tax law" under Article 55 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

However, the disposition of this case, however, rejected the plaintiff's claim that the defendant requested disclosure of the information of this case based on Articles 3 and 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, and only the reason for refusal is that the information of this case constitutes a non-disclosure under the main sentence of Article 81-13 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which is one of the "other Acts" under Article 9 (1) 1 of the same Act, and it does not constitute a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes

In addition, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the plaintiff filed an objection against the disposition of this case against the defendant on May 18, 201, and the defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the above objection against the plaintiff on June 1, 2011, but the above decision is not a decision on the objection method under the Framework Act on National Taxes or the tax laws, but it is only a decision on the objection method under Article 18 of the Information Disclosure Act and its corresponding decision.

Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the merits, which is based on the premise that the disposition of this case is a decision on the "disposition" or "disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or the tax laws" or its objection

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

조세특례제한법 제106조의7 제1항, 제2항은 일반택시 운송사업자에 대해서는 부가가치세 납부세액의 100분의 90을 경감하고, 위 운송사업자는 경감세액 전액을 일반택시 운수종사자에게 현금으로 지급하여야 한다고 규정하고 있는바, 주식회사 XX택시는 소속 택시운전기사들에게 부가가치세 경감세액이 확정되기 전에 연간 경감세액 개산(擺算)액을 월별로 안분하여 생산수당이란 명목으로 매월 지급한 다음 경갑세액이 확정되면 확정된 경감세액에서 이미 지급한 생산수당을 공제하고 남는 금액(이하 '부가가치세 경감세액 추가지급액')을 추가지급하는 방법으로 부가가치세 경감세액을 지급하고있다.

However, the additional payment of value-added tax reduced for the second period of 2010 by XXsi is not only half of the additional payment of value-added tax for the second period of 2010 to the company affiliated with the company, which is affiliated with the company, and the company XX taxi publicly announced that daily production allowance for the above additional payment of value-added tax (work price) is KRW 000, but there is doubt that the company, XX taxi, as it stated 00 won in the report of the actual use of value-added tax reduced tax (verification), did not pay the additional payment of value-added tax to the taxi engineer.

Accordingly, in order to protect the interests of taxi engineers belonging to XXsi, including the Plaintiff, it is necessary to know the instant information, and on the other hand, the instant information is not subject to non-disclosure, since it is not information that needs to be disclosed in order to protect the property or life of the people from illegal or unfair business activities under Article 9(1)7 (b) of the Information Disclosure Act. Thus, the instant disposition

B. Determination

1) In principle, information held and managed by a public institution should be disclosed in accordance with Article 3 and the main sentence of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, but if such information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under the proviso of Article 9(1), the public institution may not disclose it.

In addition, the proviso of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act provides for the information subject to non-disclosure among subparagraphs 1 through 8, and the relevant information constitutes only one of subparagraphs 1 through 8 above, which may not be disclosed to public institutions. Whether the information falls under the information subject to non-disclosure should be determined independently and individually by the reasons for non-disclosure.

2) We examine the instant case based on the foregoing legal doctrine.

A) The proviso of Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that the information specified as confidential or non-disclosure information is one of the information subject to non-disclosure pursuant to the "other Acts". Meanwhile, the main sentence of Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a tax official shall not provide other persons with the data submitted by a taxpayer to fulfill a tax liability under the tax-related Acts or the data acquired on business for the imposition and quota of national taxes (hereinafter referred to as “tax data”). In full view of the above provisions, the taxation data constitutes information prescribed as confidential or non-disclosure information under Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act.

In addition, the instant information constitutes taxation data from data submitted by XXsi to fulfill the duty to pay taxes under the Value-Added Tax Act, and the Defendant, a public institution, can refuse disclosure of the instant information to the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant information is taxation data.

B) Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant information should be disclosed because it is necessary to disclose the information to protect the property and life of the people from illegal and unfair business activities under Article 9(1)7(b) of the Information Disclosure Act.

In light of the foregoing, the proviso of Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "information deemed likely to seriously undermine the legitimate interest of the corporation if disclosed as matters concerning the management and trade secrets of the corporation" shall be subject to non-disclosure, and "information necessary to be disclosed to protect the property or life of the people from unlawful and unfair business activities" in subparagraph 7(b) of the above Article is excluded from the above information subject to non-disclosure.

However, as seen earlier, whether the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure should be separately determined for each reason for non-disclosure. Even if the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7(b) of the Information Disclosure Act, that does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 proviso of the Information Disclosure Act, and does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 proviso of the same proviso. Moreover, even if certain information falls under any of subparagraphs 1 through 8 of Article 9(1) proviso of the Information Disclosure Act, public institutions may refuse disclosure. The instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)1 proviso of the Information Disclosure Act.

Therefore, if the instant information falls under subparagraph 7 (b) of Article 9(1) proviso of the Information Disclosure Act, the Plaintiff’s assertion premiseding that disclosure cannot be denied even on the ground that the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under subparagraph 1 of the same proviso is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.