Appropriateness of the assertion that the imposition of taxation is invalid because the taxation data collection procedure is unlawful.

Although the collection procedure of taxation data argues that it is unlawful in violation of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information of Public Institutions or the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, taxation data collected through the execution of a search and seizure warrant cannot be deemed as personal information protected by the Act on the Protection of Personal Information of Public Institutions or the

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 2 (Taxpayer of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 170 (Questions and Investigations)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the first period portion of 2003 against the Plaintiff on May 1, 2007, KRW 4,685,310, Value-Added Tax for the second period portion of 203, KRW 20,115,90, KRW 13,57,010, value-added tax for the second period of 2004, KRW 17,106,750, value-added tax for the second period of 2004, KRW 19,939,380, KRW 434,410, Value-Added Tax for the second period of 205, KRW 3,691,680, global income tax for the second period of 203, KRW 4,728,150, global income tax for the year 204, KRW 205, KRW 208, KRW 208,888,200.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

가. 원고는 사업자등록을 하지 않은 채 2003. 1.경부터 주식회사 ○○(이하 '○○'이라 한다)이 운영하는 온라인 전자상거래시장인 오픈마켓(인터넷 사이트의 서비스를 통하여 다수의 판매자와 구매자 사이에 물품거래가 이루어지는 사이버 거래장소)의 회원으로 등록하여 '★★'라는 상호로 물품을 판매하는 자이다.

B. On January 25, 2006, the National Tax Service notified the Defendant of taxation data for the distributors registered in the above Open Market including the Plaintiff collected through the execution of a search and seizure warrant issued by ○○, an open market establishment company, and the Director General of the National Tax Service ("the Director General of the National Tax Service") on January 25, 2006. The Defendant did not report the total sales amount of KRW 663,071,90 in the Plaintiff sold through the Open Market, which was 87,858,850 (the total value-added tax amount of KRW 4,685,310, value-added tax amount of KRW 20,115,90, KRW 137, value-added tax for the year 2004, KRW 137, value-added tax for the year 207, KRW 205, KRW 1308, KRW 205, KRW 314, KRW 205, KRW 205, KRW 2084.

C. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection on July 16, 2007, but was dismissed on July 2, 2008, and filed the instant lawsuit on October 1, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including rectangular number), the whole purport of pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is not only based on the taxation data that was issued to an unspecified majority without specifying the suspect, and is based on the invalid search and seizure warrant, but also on the collected taxation data in violation of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information by Public Institutions that prohibit the collection of personal information which is likely to seriously infringe on the fundamental human rights of the individual without the consent of the subject of information and the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. which prohibit the use or provision to a third party of personal information other than

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

According to the overall purport of Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (including virtual numbers) and the whole purport of the arguments, the Seoul District Court issued a search warrant (Evidence 6; hereinafter referred to as "the search warrant of this case") on January 25, 2006 on the basis of taxation data secured through the execution of a search and seizure warrant issued by the defendant, for the purpose of ascertaining facts as to the violation of the Tax Punishment Act, including where ○ and the registered business operators registered as members of the Open Market, failed to report sales and failed to return tax, and evaded tax evasion through title transfer.

D. Determination

(1) First, as to the assertion that the instant taxation data were collected pursuant to an invalid search and seizure warrant and the instant disposition was unlawful, the name of the suspect, the name of the crime, the goods to be seized, the place of search and seizure, the body, the goods, the term of validity, etc. shall be stated in the search and seizure warrant. However, if the name of the suspect is unclear, the suspect may be identified by appearance, physical build, and other matters with which the suspect can be identified (Article 219, 114, and 75(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Articles 107(1) and 95 subparag. 1 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, Article 107(1), and 95 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act), and the search and seizure warrant of this case shall be registered as an open market operator as an individual sales business operator (US), and it shall be acknowledged that the fact of specifying the suspect as the person who sold the goods to buyers from 1998 to 198, as alleged by the plaintiff.

(2) Next, as to the assertion that the taxation data collection procedure as above is illegal in violation of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information of Public Institutions, the Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection Act, and the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, the taxation data collected through the execution of the search and seizure warrant of this case cannot be deemed as personal information protected by the above Act, etc., since the taxation data collected through the execution of the search and seizure warrant of this

3. Conclusion

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