Information acquired in the course of tax investigation shall be disclosed.

Since the plaintiff has an interest in the profits and losses of all branches acquired in the course of the tax investigation, the relevant information is obligated to be disclosed.

Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012Guhap29356 Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Information Disclosure

Gangwon A

Seoul Regional Tax Office

June 20, 2013

July 23, 2013

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for revocation of a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information pertaining to the information listed in Section 2(b) of attached Table 1 shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s refusal to disclose information as to the information listed in paragraphs (a) and (c) of Annex 1 attached hereto, which was made on June 11, 2012 against the Plaintiff, and the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information as to the information listed in paragraph (3) of the same Table as of July 6, 2012, shall be revoked.

3. Of the litigation costs, 30% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

Disposition No. 2 and the defendant on June 11, 2012 revoked a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information as to the information listed in Paragraph 2(b) of the attached Table 1 against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a doctor to establish and operate a name store with BBsanbu (hereinafter referred to as "the hospital of this case").

B. On November 1, 2011, the Defendant rendered a disposition of notification by the OOOO members (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff evaded comprehensive income tax by fraud or other unlawful means from 2007 to 2010.” Furthermore, the head of the tax office imposed a disposition of imposition of the total amount of global income tax and resident tax on the ground that the Plaintiff filed a return by omitting the amount of income on December 1 of the same year. (hereinafter “instant taxation disposition”).

C. On May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose each information listed in attached Table 1 List 1(1).

D. On June 11, 2012, the Defendant made a non-disclosure decision on the ground that the information listed in Paragraph (2) of the same List was neither prepared nor acquired in the course of performing his/her duties nor constitutes non-disclosure information stipulated in Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see Evidence No. 24; hereinafter referred to as “non-disclosure disposition”).

E. On June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection. However, on the 22th day of the same month, the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s objection on the grounds that the aforementioned information constitutes non-disclosure information under Article 9(1)1 of the Official Information Disclosure Act and Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, as taxation information acquired on duty to impose and collect national taxes.

F. On June 23, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of information listed in Paragraph (3) of the Attached List. However, on July 6 of the same year, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision on the same ground as the above rejection ruling (see Evidence A No. 27; hereinafter referred to as “the second non-disclosure disposition”) and “the information listed in Paragraphs (a), (c) and (3) of the Attached List No. 2, which are non-disclosure information,” collectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 8-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 9, 11, Gap evidence Nos. 24 through 27, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part concerning the revocation of the first non-disclosure disposition concerning the non-owned information among the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. Main Safety Defenses

Since non-owned information is not information acquired or held by the defendant, there is no legal interest in seeking cancellation of disposition rejecting information disclosure.

B. Determination

In light of the fact that the information disclosure system is a system that discloses information held and managed by a public institution in its state, it must prove that there is a considerable probability that the person seeking information disclosure will possess and manage the information that is sought for disclosure, and where a public institution does not hold and manage such information, there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the disposition rejecting information disclosure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du12854, Jan. 28, 2005), barring special circumstances, there is no evidence to prove that there is a considerable probability that the defendant acquires and retains the non-owned information, and there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the non-disclosure disposition in this case concerning the non-owned

3. Whether the first and second non-disclosure dispositions regarding the instant information were lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Each branch of the instant hospital, including the Plaintiff, was operated in the form of an association. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was in possession of the rights and obligations to the entire branch, as well as BBsan and the nominal branch. The Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the entire branch of the instant hospital, and issued the instant tax disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff omitted the amount of income from the amount of association income and reported the amount of association income allocated according to the Plaintiff’s share ratio. Therefore, the instant information acquired or kept by the Defendant during the instant tax investigation process, as it is necessary for the Plaintiff to exercise the Plaintiff’s rights as a taxable basis for the Plaintiff, is not subject to non-disclosure. Accordingly, the instant disposition made on a different premise, which was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

C. Facts of recognition

1) The instant hospital was jointly established and operated and distributed profits therefrom according to its equity ratio by concluding a partnership agreement with the content that the instant hospital was jointly established and operated, and the instant hospital was operated, and the instant hospital’s Cheongdol, Gangnam, and New Villagel were opened around March 2005. The Plaintiff thereafter worked as a monthly-class doctor from the name dong point of the instant hospital.

2) On January 15, 2007, thisCC established a BB network (hereinafter “B network”) for the management support of the instant hospital. The FF, the wife of thisCC, was the head of the BB network and was in charge of accounting and tax affairs of the said union.

3) On the basis of the difference between EE and thisCC in 2007, thisCC proposed an investment share in the Plaintiff, leisureG, and Park HH, who was a monthly doctor. Accordingly, around March of the same year, the Plaintiff, leisureG, and Park HH entered into a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff, LG, and Park HH, respectively, and made an investment of OOE each, respectively. As a result, thisCC had 69%, 00,00,000,000,000,000, and 7% of the shares of the Plaintiff, LG, and Park H were to own each of 7% of the shares of the partnership (hereinafter referred to as the “instant partnership”). Since the instant association, each of the instant union members held 10% of the shares of the instant hospital (hereinafter referred to as “the instant association”), the instant association’s office store, pressure store, name store, forest store, new village store, and operation of the association’s shares (However, Gangnam point, Kim J, an intention of grade, operation of the instant branch).

4) After that, around September 2007, KK joined the instant association, the partnership shares came to have 62% of thisCC, 10% of this Section, and 7% of this case’s 10% of this case’s 0% of the Plaintiff, women, women, GG, Park H, and HaK, respectively. around January 2008, thisCC wants to open the instant hospital’s care points, red points, Gangnam 2 points, Gangnam 2, and roke.

5) Following the dissolution of the instant union by a dispute between its members around January 2010, femaleG, Park H and HK, including the Plaintiff, transferred all of the partnership shares held by them to thisCC, and work as a monthly-level doctor from February of the same year.

6) On June 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with the instant hospital that jointly operates the instant hospital. The details are as follows: (a) Plaintiff 49% of the Plaintiff; (b) 51% of the Plaintiff’s share in the instant hospital (Article 5(1)); and (c) net income is distributed 50% of the Plaintiff’s share in the instant hospital (Article 5(1)); (d) the amount of damages for tax, civil, criminal and administrative cases arising in relation to the hospital operation; (b) the amount of damages; (c) penalty surcharges; (d) fines; and (e) the amount of the relevant partner’s share in total (Article 10) where the partner who caused the problem was intentional or grossly negligent.

7) Around May 201, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the former branch and BB network of the instant hospital (hereinafter “instant tax investigation”). As a result, during the taxable period from 2007 to 2010, the Plaintiff and its partners, including the Plaintiff, omitted the association profits allocated according to their respective shares from the amount of income and imposed taxes on the amount of income not returned.

8) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant taxation disposition as Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap16987. During the said lawsuit, the Defendant submitted some of the instant information, among the instant information, from 207 to 2010, pursuant to the instant court’s order to submit documents dated October 4, 2012, the 12th day of the same month, and November 22, 2012, such as the instant report data and the mobile storage device (USB), the report data and the search and seizure report of BB network, and the front report onCC.

[Basis] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1 through 3; Gap evidence 17; Gap evidence 18 through 23; 33 through 42; Eul evidence 1 to 5; the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that any information that is classified as confidential or confidential information by other Acts or orders delegated by other Acts (limited to the National Assembly Regulations, the Supreme Court Regulations, the Constitutional Court Regulations, the National Election Commission Regulations, the National Election Commission Regulations, the National Election Commission Regulations, Presidential Decree, and municipal ordinances) shall not be provided or disclosed to a third party for the purpose of imposing or collecting national taxes (hereinafter referred to as “tax information”) and where a taxpayer requests the provision of tax information in violation of Article 81-13(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act. Accordingly, the tax information provided under Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes constitutes information that is provided as confidential or confidential in accordance with other Acts under Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act.

However, in light of the purport, contents, and relationship of the Information Disclosure Act and the relevant provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes, all citizens shall have the right to claim disclosure of information held and managed by public institutions pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, and it is exceptionally exempted from the duty to disclosure only in cases where the information is provided as non-disclosure information by other Acts. Therefore, in interpreting Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an exception provision, it is necessary to determine the scope of information disclosure through a harmonious interpretation of conflicting values in the direction that

2) Based on the above legal principles and contents, the following circumstances are revealed. ① The instant tax investigation was conducted with respect to BB network in charge of overall branch offices and accounting management of the instant hospital. As a result, the Plaintiff was given the instant disposition and taxation on the ground that the Plaintiff, as members of the instant hospital, omitted association earnings distributed according to its share ratio from the amount of income. ② Article 29(1) of the association’s articles of incorporation provides that “The amount of profits distribution shall be distributed on the 15th day of each month after deducting fixed costs, change costs, common expenses, taxes, and other public charges accrued from the association from the aggregate amount of revenues generated from the association.” The Plaintiff’s tax information disclosure method, excluding the Plaintiff’s tax revenue disclosure method, i.e., the Plaintiff’s tax revenue disclosure method, i., the entire branch offices of the instant hospital’s interest in the instant case, i.e., the Plaintiff’s tax revenue disclosure method, i., the entire branch offices’ interest in the instant tax disclosure method, i.e., the Plaintiff’s interest distribution method.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the first non-disclosure disposition concerning the non-owned information of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff's remaining claims are justified.