1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons why this part of the disposition is used by the court are as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except that the part “from October 30, 2014 to January 12, 2015” in the second 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the portion “from October 30, 2014 to February 15, 2015” is deemed as being stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The materials submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant at the time of the initial report and the supplementary report revealing specific facts, such as transaction partners, transaction dates, transaction periods, transaction items, etc., which can confirm the details of tax evasion, and it does not mean that the Defendant can easily collect them as ordinary investigation activities for the purpose of taxation. Meanwhile, if the Plaintiff did not submit the above materials, the Defendant’s taxation on G could not have been conducted. Accordingly, the above materials submitted by the Plaintiff were amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter “former Framework Act on National Taxes”).

(2) Article 84-2 of the Act on the Payment of Monetary Rewards provides that a decision on whether the provision on the payment of monetary rewards for tax evasion, which is an order issued by the National Tax Service, constitutes “material material” shall be made by the Monetary Rewards Deliberation Committee to deliberate and decide on whether the provision on the payment of monetary rewards for tax evasion, which is an order given by the National Tax Service, constitutes “material material material”.

However, the instant disposition is unlawful as it was conducted by the Defendant without going through the deliberation and resolution process of the Monetary Rewards Deliberation Committee.

3 The instant disposition, unlike the public opinion expressed by the Defendant on February 28, 2014 through the “written guidance for handling tax evasion reports” sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on February 28, 2014 and the “written notice on the result of handling tax evasion reports” sent on May 13, 2015, is contrary to the principle of protection of trust.

(b).