Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap61866 ( October 16, 2015)

Joint and several persons liable for tax payment shall constitute a taxpayer who peruses the details of inheritance tax return by the inheritee.

The Plaintiffs are co-inheritors of the deceasedA along with thisB, and the instant information is necessary to exercise their rights as taxpayers. As such, it does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 17(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act and Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Confidentiality under Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2015Nu41878 Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Information Disclosure

○○ and 2

○ Head of tax office et al.

Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Partnership-61866 ( October 16, 2015)

December 18, 2015

January 15, 2016

1. Defendant ○○○ Director’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the head of the tax office of ○○○ among the judgment of the court of first instance (the part in paragraph (3) shall

A. On May 14, 2014, Defendant ○○ Tax Office’s disposition of nonpublic disclosure of the information listed in the separate sheet No. 2 that was made against the Plaintiffs on May 14, 2014, the portion on which the cause of acquisition in the transfer income tax is not an inheritance or testamentary gift related to the network EA, and the qualification, status, number, account number, account details of the network EA and EB, and the name, resident registration number, corporate registration number, address, business registration number, address, status, account number, and account number of any third party other than the network EA and EB shall be revoked.

B. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendant ○○ Head of the tax office are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and the director of the regional tax office of ○○○ and the director of the regional tax office are borne by the defendant, and the total costs of the lawsuit between the plaintiffs and the director of the regional tax office of ○○○ shall be borne by the plaintiffs and the director of the regional tax office

1. Purport of claim

A. On May 8, 2014, it is found that the omission by the director of the regional tax office of ○○○ by Defendant 1 on a request for disclosure of information on the attached list [the report of investigation completion (including the details of omission in reporting inherited property by the decedent and the details of distribution by heir) prepared after the investigation of inheritance tax conducted by the head of the regional tax office of ○○○○○○ on the heir of the deceased LeeB from March 8, 2011 to December 9, 2011 is illegal.] made to the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○ on the part of the deleted part.

B. On May 14, 2014, the head of ○○ Tax Office revoked the disposition of non-disclosure of information on the information listed in attached Table 2, which was made to the Plaintiffs.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the following matters, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) On the 4th page, the following shall be added:

E. Defendant ○○ Head of the Tax Office’s Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) is pending in the appellate trial.

Article 9 (1) 3 and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act were added to the grounds for disposition.

(2) Parts 6, 21 to 8, 4, shall be as follows:

“1) Under laws and regulations on the claim for disclosure of information against Defendant ○○ Director

There is no dispute between the parties on the fact that the plaintiffs filed a request for disclosure of information pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Information Disclosure Act and Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act against the defendant ○○ Tax Office.

Meanwhile, Article 3 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "information held and managed by a public institution shall be disclosed in accordance with the provisions of this Act." Article 4 (1) provides that "Any person who requests the disclosure of information shall be governed by this Act, except as otherwise provided for in other Acts, with respect to such disclosure." Article 10 (1) provides that "any person who requests the disclosure of information may submit a written or oral request for disclosure of information stating the following matters to a public institution holding or managing such information," and Article 11 (1) provides that "public institution shall determine whether to disclose information within 10 days from the date on which such request is made pursuant to the provisions of Article 10." Article 81-13 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "any person who requests the provision of tax information pursuant to the provisions of subparagraphs 1, 2, and 5 through 8 of this Act shall be so requested to the head of the tax office concerned." Article 10 (1) provides that "any person who requests the disclosure of information shall be promptly requested by a taxpayer under the provisions of this Act.

As such, the claim for information disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act and the request for information disclosure under the Framework Act on National Taxes are different in terms of the other party, processing procedure, and the grounds for disclosure and non-disclosure, and thus, the request for information disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act cannot be deemed as the same as the request for information disclosure under the Framework Act on National Taxes or as including the request for information disclosure (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du9351, Nov. 10, 2006).

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim for information disclosure against the defendant ○○ director cannot be viewed as a request for information disclosure under the Framework Act on National Taxes.

2) Determination on the grounds for refusing to disclose information by Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office

A) Determination on rejection under Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that, in principle, information held and managed by public institutions shall be disclosed as confidential or confidential information under other Acts or orders delegated by other Acts, and the main sentence of Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall not be provided or disclosed to other persons, or used for purposes other than for the purpose of imposing and collecting national taxes (hereinafter referred to as "tax information") by a taxpayer. In full view of each of the above provisions, other person's tax information constitutes "information provided as confidential information under other Acts" under Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du11544, Mar. 12, 2004). The rejection of information disclosure under Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes by Defendant ○○ Tax Office appears to be a non-disclosure information under other Acts provided for in Article 9(1)1 of the Act.

On the other hand, Article 81-14 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014) provides that "tax officials shall provide information promptly if a taxpayer requests information necessary for the exercise of taxpayer's right." It is reasonable to deem that the exception to non-disclosure provided for in Article 81-13 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is prescribed.

Article 3(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "an heir or a person who takes a legacy shall pay inheritance tax according to the rate calculated as prescribed by Presidential Decree with respect to the inheritance tax imposed pursuant to this Act according to the criteria for property received or to be received by each heir among inherited property." Article 3(3) of the same Act provides that "An heir or a person who takes a legacy shall be jointly and severally liable to pay inheritance tax within the limits of the property received or to be received by each heir or testamentary donee." Therefore, the Plaintiffs constitute "A co-inheritors who are jointly and severally liable to pay inheritance tax" under Article 81-14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and who are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of inheritance tax with other co-inheritors such as B, etc. If the Plaintiffs request information necessary for the exercise of taxpayer's right, information disclosure related to inheritance tax liability of the deceased cannot be refused pursuant to Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Therefore, since the portion of the information of this case falls under this case, it is unlawful to recognize that the Plaintiffs's tax office's disclosure relation to the inheritance or testament.

However, in the case of the remaining portion of the gift tax and the capital gains tax, where the cause of acquisition of an ancestor is not an inheritance or testamentary gift related to the deceased AA, it is difficult to deem that the pre-donation property is subject to disclosure unless there are special circumstances that the pre-donation property is related to the inheritance tax liability, such as that it is included in the inherited property. Therefore, it is difficult to find data on this point, and therefore, it cannot be concluded that

B) Determination on rejection under Article 17(1)1 of the Personal Information Protection Act and Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act

(1) Whether additional grounds for disposition under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act are permitted

In an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, a disposition agency may add or alter other grounds only to the extent that the original reason and basic factual relations are deemed identical to the original reason and the existence of such basic factual relations is determined based on whether the grounds for disposition are identical in basic social facts in that they are identical in terms of the specific facts prior to legal evaluation. As such, the existence of the identity of such basic factual relations shall not be deemed identical to the original reason for disposition on the ground that the additional or modified reason existed at the time of disposition or the parties knew of such fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Du1586, Nov. 26, 2009; 2009Du19021, Nov. 24, 2011).

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that the information pertaining to an individual, such as the name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information, which is deemed likely to infringe on the privacy or the freedom of privacy if disclosed, shall be deemed non-disclosure grounds for the addition of the grounds for disposition under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act. This means that personal information (information pertaining to an individual, which can be identified through the name, resident registration number, image, etc.) can be provided only when the consent of the owner of the information is obtained pursuant to Article 17(1)1 of the Personal Information Protection Act and the identity of the relevant basic fact is recognized. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the addition of

(2) Determination

"㈎ 정보공개법 제9조 제1항 제6호 본문은 비공개대상정보의 하나로당해정보에 포함되어 있는 이름・주민등록번호 등 개인에 관한 사항으로서 공개될 경우 개인의 사생활의 비밀 또는 자유를 침해할 우려가 있다고 인정되는 정보'를 규정하고 있는데, 여기에는 2004. 1. 29. 법률 제7127호로 전부 개정되기 전의 구 정보공개법 제7조 제1항 제6호 본문에서 말하는 단순한 개인식별정보 외에 '개인에 관한 사항의 공개로 인하여 개인의 내밀한 내용의 비밀 등이 알려지게 되고, 그 결과 인격적・정신적 내면생활에 지장을 초래하거나 자유로운 사생활을 영위할 수 없게 될 위험성이 있는 정보'도 포함된다. 한편 같은 호 단서 (다)목은공공기관이 작성하거나 취득한 정보로서 공개하는 것이 공익 또는 개인의 권리구제를 위하여 필요하다고 인정되는 정보'는 다시 위 조항에 따른 비공개대상정보에서 제외된다고 규정하고 있는데, 여기에서공개하는 것이 개인의 권리구제를 위하여 필요하다고 인정되는 정보'에 해당하는지 여부도 비공개에 의하여 보호되는 개인의 사생활의 비밀 등의 이익과 공개에 의하여 보호되는 개인의 권리구제 등의 이익을 비교・교량하여 구체적 사안에 따라 신중히 판단하여야 한다(대법원 2012. 6. 18. 선고 2011두2361 판결 등 참조).",㈏ 우선, 원고들은 이 사건 ② 정보에 대한 공개청구 당시 개인정보 중 망이AA 및 그 상속인인 이BB의 성명, 주민등록번호, 주소 개인정보를 모두 명시하였으므로, 망 이AA과 이BB의 성명, 주민등록번호, 주소를 개인정보보호 목적으로 비공개 한다는 사유는 인정될 수 없다.

However, in the case of the qualification, status, account number, and account details of the network A and BB, and if disclosed, it constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act, and thus, it constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act. In addition, since the interests of the BB protected by disclosure are larger than those of the plaintiffs protected by disclosure, it does not constitute grounds for non-disclosure under Article 7(1)6 of the Information Disclosure

㈐ 한편, 망 이AA과 이BB을 제외한 제3자의 성명, 주민등록번호, 법인등록번호, 사업자등록번호, 주소, 자격, 지위, 계좌번호, 계좌내역 부분은 개인정보이므로 비공개사유에 해당한다고 봄이 타당하다. 나아가 제3자의 개인정보가 포함된 부분은 비공개에 의하여 보호되는 제3자의 사생활의 비밀 등의 이익이 공개에 의하여 보호되는 원고들의 권리구제보다 더 큰 이익이라 할 것이므로 같은 호 단서 (다)목의 비공개대상 정보 제외 사유에도 해당하지 아니한다고 봄이 상당하다.

C) Determination on rejection under Article 9(1)3 of the Information Disclosure Act

In light of the legal principles as to whether to permit additional disposition grounds as seen earlier, Article 9(1)3 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that the disclosure of information is likely to seriously obstruct the protection of people's lives, bodies, and property.

In addition, the first reason for the disposition by the head of the ○○ Tax Office constitutes the reason for non-disclosure under the Framework Act on National Taxes and it was impossible to disclose it under the Personal Information Protection Act. The reason that there is a concern about significantly impeding the protection of the property under Article 9(1)3 of the Information Disclosure Act added by the head of the ○○ Tax Office is difficult to view that there is the identity of the original reason for the disposition and its basic factual relations

Therefore, it is not allowed to add the grounds for disposition under Article 9(1)3 of the Information Disclosure Act by Defendant ○○ Tax Office (A) (A) to the grounds for disposition under Article 9(1)3 of the Information Disclosure Act (A) is not allowed even if the Defendant asserted that the Defendant is a company secret in the process of a closed trial, but a company secret is also deemed to fall under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act and there is no identity of the underlying facts as to the grounds for disposition as well as the grounds for disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du4602, Jul.

D) Sub-committee

Therefore, the part of the gift tax, the part of the transfer income tax, the part not related to the tax liability of the plaintiffs and co-inheritors who are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the information of this case, the part not related to the inheritance or testamentary gift related to thisA, the qualification, status, account number, account number, account details of the deceased EA and thisB, the name, resident registration number, corporate registration number, business registration number, address, status, status, account number, and other third parties except this part, which is the personal information of the deceased EA and thisB, is unlawful.

(3) On face 13, annexed Acts and subordinate statutes shall be added thereto.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, among the plaintiffs' lawsuits against the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for revocation of the non-disclosure of the information of this case relating to ① is unlawful and dismissed, and the part of the plaintiffs' claim against the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○○○○○○, except the information of this case, is accepted for the reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable with this conclusion, and thus, the appeal by the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○○○○○ is dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiffs' claim against the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○○○○○○○○○, as it is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit.