Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-79680 ( August 25, 2016)

Cho Jae-2015-west-2002 (Law No. 24, 2015)

The criminal judgment submitted at the time of reporting a tax evasion shall be a material directly related to the calculation of the tax evasion amount or a considerable contribution thereto.

At the time of reporting tax evasion, only the criminal judgment and the transcript of corporate register containing facts known to the media, which are directly related to or has contributed to the calculation of the tax evasion amount, which constitute important data prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Payment of rewards under Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Payment of rewards under Article 65-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2016Nu63523 Action to revoke the revocation of the revocation of the refusal to pay a reward

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap79680 decided August 25, 2016

May 17, 2017

June 21, 2017

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On December 9, 2014, the Defendant’s refusal to pay a tax evasion reporting reward against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. (However, the "B" of the second and second reasons is added to "B around November 5, 2014" and "Evidence No. 11 of the A" of the 17th judgment is added to "Evidence No. 10 and 11 of the A".

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Determination

1) First, we examine whether the data submitted by the Plaintiff while reporting tax evasion constitutes "important data".

A) Article 84-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same) provides that a person who provides a "material material to calculate the tax evasion amount or the amount of tax unjustly refunded or deducted may be paid a bounty of up to 2 billion won." Paragraph (2)1 of the same Article provides that "important material to verify the details of the tax evasion or illegally refunded or deducted amount may be paid a bounty of up to 2 billion won." Paragraph (1)1 of the same Article provides that the material or book (excluding those for which a tax investigation is being conducted at the time of submission of the material or book; hereinafter in this Article referred to as "tax evasion material") that contains specific facts, such as the date and period of the transaction, transaction items, transaction volume and amount, etc., of the material to verify the whereabouts of the material falling under item (a) shall be deemed as material to enable tax evasion or the amount of tax unjustly refunded or deducted, etc. (b) other material to be deemed as material to be objectively stated in paragraph (16).).

B) The purport of the former Framework Act on National Taxes that provides a reward to a person who provides important data in calculating the tax evasion amount is that the tax authority can easily collect the tax evasion amount without much cost and effort if the tax authority is provided with specific data that can verify the fact of tax evasion under the realistic circumstances where it is impossible to investigate whether all taxpayers are liable to pay the tax evasion amount. Furthermore, if the information on the tax evasion can be activated, the tax authority can create a climate of tax evasion in good faith, thereby paying a reward to a person who provides information that satisfies certain requirements in relation to the tax evasion. Therefore, the term "important data subject to a reward" should include specific data that can sufficiently verify the fact of tax evasion, as provided in Article 84-2(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 65-4(11) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, the tax authority cannot be deemed to be subject to the imposition of a reward or other material material that makes it difficult to ascertain the fact of tax evasion in light of the purport of the tax evasion amount or the material reported material.

C) In full view of the following circumstances as to the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 8, Eul evidence No. 1-1 through 9, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 4-1 and Eul evidence No. 2, and the overall purport of the pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the materials provided by the plaintiff while reporting tax evasion are included in specific materials that the tax authority could easily confirm the facts of tax evasion, and that the materials provided by the plaintiff were directly related to the assessment of the tax evasion amount or contributed considerablely to the calculation of the tax evasion amount beyond simply becoming an opportunity for taxation. Thus, it constitutes "important materials" under Article 84-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.

① On January 21, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted the certified copy of the register of the pertinent criminal case (○○ District Court 2013No000) and the ECE Institute to the Defendant’s husband and wife by omitting the comprehensive income tax return on KRW 000,00, which the twoB transferred the management and operation right of the ECE Institute to the Defendant, and submitted the certified copy of the register of the ECE Institute. The above judgment contains the following: “The instant money (00 won) paid by the Defendant A to the Defendant’s husband and wife was performed by the obligation under the acquisition of the management and operation right of the EPE and operation right, but is not a price for illegal solicitation,” and the Defendant’s assertion and “the Defendant was recognized to have paid the instant money to the Defendant’s husband and wife,” and the above certified copy contains the following seven forms and addresses in front of the resident registration numbers and addresses of both BB and YA.

② On February 28, 2014, upon the Defendant’s request to supplement information on tax evasion, the Plaintiff submitted a written reply (including the content that he/she reported tax evasion to Park Jong) to the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Decision 2013Do000, Apr. 30, 2014). On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted a written decision of the appellate court (○○ District Court 2014No00, Oct. 29, 2009) after the reversal and return of the said criminal case. The Plaintiff submitted the said written decision of the appellate court to Defendant A, “YAA” and “YBBB” to Defendant B, and around May 20, 2008, Defendant B received an unlawful solicitation from the president of the H office located in ○○○○○ P around 2009, and around 2009, the Plaintiff received an unlawful solicitation from the president on around 209, 2009.

③ Comprehensively taking account of the materials submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of reporting tax evasion on January 21, 2014 and the materials submitted by the Plaintiff, bothB were paid KRW 000 in total with respect to the acquisition of the management and operation right of the EE Institute from January 29, 2009 to September 28, 2009, and both BB and LA are confirmed.

④ In fact, the content of the report on the completion of the on-site verification prepared by the Defendant’s person in charge of the Defendant’s side on July 2014 is also based on both the above-mentioned criminal case decisions and the first instance court rulings (○○ District Court 2012Kadan000) in addition to the fact that the on-site verification was conducted on-site with respect to the payer Park Jong-A. In addition to the fact that the content of the report on the completion of the on-site verification was conducted on-site verification, it is also limited to three copies of the

⑤ Prior to the Plaintiff’s information on the transfer of management right of the EE Institute, there was a report from November 8, 2012 to September 12, 2013; and thereafter, from February 8, 2014 to April 15, 2014, ○○○○ Do Residents’ Day, ○○ Do Residents’ Day, and ○○ ○ ○○ News, etc.; however, the Defendant’s specific confirmation of the foregoing press reports appears to be the first order from the end of December 2014, 2014, when bothB pays the total amount of global income tax for the year 2009 and the Plaintiff applied for the payment of monetary rewards.

(6) The head of ○○ regional tax office collects each year a final and conclusive judgment on acceptance of bribe, acceptance of property in breach of trust, and acceptance of good offices, etc., which occurred at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office and each local public prosecutor’s office within the expiration of the exclusion period of imposition, in the form of “the name of the competent public prosecutor’s office, case number, name of the accused, name of the declaration representative, and content of disposition”. However, the Plaintiff’s information was made before the judgment related to the above twoB’s criminal cases became final and conclusive, and as such, it is somewhat unclear whether the judgment subject to collection

D) Meanwhile, Article 3(2) of the former Regulations on the Payment of Monetary Rewards for Tax Evasion [No. 2034, Feb. 7, 2014 (amended by the National Tax Service Directive No. 2034, Dec. 31, 2020; hereafter the same shall apply] provides for the following: (a) “data on the difference between tax accounting and corporate accounting” (Article 84-2); (b) “data on the difference between tax amount and corporate accounting” (Article 2); (c) “data on the mistake in the assessment price under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act; (d)” (Article 3(3) of the former Regulations on the Payment of Monetary Rewards for Tax Evasion (amended by the National Tax Service Directive No. 2034, Feb. 7, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply]; (b) “data on the portion of the industry’s general information and the contents of the report, etc. submitted by the principal and trading partner of the Framework Act on National Taxes or by a third party,” (Article 54(2) of the former Regulations).3).

E) In a case where the judgment of a criminal case, which is the main evidence of the Plaintiff’s filing of a tax evasion report, falls under the material stipulated in Article 84-2(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 65-4(11) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, such as various kinds of transaction books, accounting data or receipts, details of financial transactions, and related contract documents, which are anticipated to be submitted by a corporation, an individual company, or its other party to such transaction, is clear. However, considering the fact that the tax evasion and the amount of tax illegally refunded or deducted by the person who omitted the tax payment of the above monetary rewards are not subject to the payment of the monetary rewards, it does not necessarily mean that the person who provided the material material material necessary to calculate the amount of the monetary rewards so that the tax evasion and the amount of the monetary rewards can be easily collected without any other unlawful law in the process of acquiring the material material materials for tax evasion, such as the above mentioned above, and thus, it is also necessary to comprehensively review the relevant tax evasion system and other detailed information methods.

2) Ultimately, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the materials submitted by the Plaintiff while making a report on tax evasion do not constitute “important materials” under Article 84-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, should be revoked in an unlawful manner without any further determination as to the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this conclusion, so the plaintiff's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the disposition of this case is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition.