Whether an act of requesting the disclosure of another person's information is legitimate

Although the Plaintiff requires disclosure of the status of changes in ownership and remuneration of others, the Plaintiff is not allowed under the current Administrative Litigation Act, a type of lawsuit seeking to erase the obligation of an administrative agency to take such administrative disposition against the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992).

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

2015Guhap20864 Demanding the revocation of a disposition of non-disclosure

AA

Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office

April 15, 2015

May 6, 2015

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the instant lawsuit dismissing the disclosure of the current status of changes in ownership and remuneration for the OB’s Co., Ltd. to the public.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s notification of the decision to disclose information on BB made to the Plaintiff on August 6, 2014 is revoked. From June 23, 2014, BB’s major shareholders of OO Co., Ltd. from June 23, 2014 to the date of the instant decision, matters concerning the current status of stock ownership change, monthly remuneration received, and received amount will be disclosed to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff has a claim against BB on the basis of KRW 60 million based on the final judgment, and damages for delay thereof. In the case where the Plaintiff filed an application for property specification against BB based on the above enforcement title, BB prepared a list of property stating that BB shall receive KRW 1,450,000 as monthly remuneration from OO Co., Ltd.

B. On August 6, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the court for the issuance of a seizure and collection order with BB as the debtor, and filed an application with the Defendant for disclosure of “the number of stocks and stocks of OCOs owned by BB and the monthly remuneration status received from OCO Co., Ltd.” (hereinafter “instant information”).

C. On August 6, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision of non-disclosure of information (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant information is subject to non-disclosure under Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

Evidence Nos. 1 through 4 of the Grounds for Recognition, each entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

BB is substantially operating the OB and prepares a false list of property as if only monthly remuneration is paid by the OB Co., Ltd., and there is no value to protect BB, and the instant information should be disclosed. The instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) The Plaintiff seeking a direct disclosure of information is seeking disclosure to the Defendant, such as the current status of stock ownership change, remuneration, etc., of BB’s O2 Co., Ltd., but such performance lawsuit is not allowed under the current Administrative Litigation Act, which seeks to delete the obligation of an administrative agency to take such administrative disposition against the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992). The part of the claim for disclosure of information is unlawful.

2) Determination on the part of seeking revocation of the disposition rejecting information disclosure

A) Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that any information specified as confidential or non-public information may not be disclosed to the public pursuant to other Acts. According to the main sentence of Article 81-13(1) and Article 81-13(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, a tax official shall not provide or disclose data submitted by a taxpayer for the purpose of imposing or collecting national taxes (hereinafter referred to as “tax information”), or data acquired on duty for the purpose of imposing or collecting national taxes, unless otherwise provided for in each subparagraph of the proviso of Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter referred to as “tax information”), and shall not use such data for any purpose other

The purpose of Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is to protect taxpayers’ privacy by strictly restricting the use of taxation information that a tax official acquired from a taxpayer for any purpose other than the purpose of taxation for the purpose of imposing and collecting taxes so that he/she can perform his/her duty of tax payment cooperation in good faith and sincerity by protecting private secrets. A tax official who is able to obtain important information, such as customers, management strategies, financial structure, etc. related to his/her economic activities, compared to other public officials, may disclose such information to the public only for the reasons for such exception in order to prevent the infringement of secrets of taxpayers and the rejection of tax administration that may arise if the tax official disclose such information without any restriction. The information provided for in Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes falls under the information provided for by other Acts provided for in Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 203Du11544,

B) According to the above facts, the information of this case constitutes the data submitted by BB to fulfill the tax liability under the tax law or the data that the Defendant acquired on duty for the purpose of imposing or collecting national taxes, and thus, the Defendant may not provide or divulge the information of this case to another person or use it for purposes other than the intended purpose pursuant to Article 81-13(1) main sentence and (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and may not refuse to disclose the information of this case pursuant to Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act. Even if the Plaintiff has claims against B with respect to a final judgment, such circumstance alone does not constitute a ground for disclosure of tax information. Accordingly, without examining further whether the information of this case constitutes the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act, the disposition of this case rejected by the Defendant pursuant to Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act and Article 81-13(1) main sentence and (3) of the Information Disclosure Act is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit that the plaintiff directly claims the disclosure of information against the defendant is unlawful. Thus, the remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.