Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap24999 ( October 30, 2010)

a report on the correction of business registration as a sole business in a joint business shall be subject to taxation by the sole business

A report on the correction of business registration submitted to change from a joint business place to a sole business operator shall not be deemed as tax information of the relevant sole business operator, which is a member of the previous joint business, and it shall not be deemed any different because the plaintiff was a member of the previous joint business or was returned later to a joint business

Article 81-13 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 9 (1) 1 of the Information Disclosure Act

1. Revocation of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation part;

The dismissal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

On January 22, 2010, the Defendant revoked the decision to disclose information not to disclose to the Plaintiff on January 22, 2010 as stated in the Schedule 1 to 3 attached hereto.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

On January 14, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of each of the information listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “instant information”) concerning ○○○○○○○○-dong 124-11, ○○○○○○○-dong 124-11, whose business registration was registered, in the joint name of the Plaintiff ParkA, ParkB, and KoCC (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”). (hereinafter referred to as “instant request for disclosure”).

On January 22, 2010, the Defendant rejected disclosure on the ground that each information listed in the separate sheet falls under information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)1 and 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act and Article 81-13(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010).

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute, Gap 1, 2, 7, 12 evidence, Eul 2 and 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

(a) “Tax information” under the provisions of Article 81-13 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes; and

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant information is subject to disclosure because it does not fall under Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

However, Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "information specified as confidential or confidential information by other Acts or any order issued under other Acts shall not be subject to non-disclosure," and Article 81-13(1) main text and (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall not provide or disclose data submitted by a taxpayer to fulfill a tax liability under this tax-related Act, or data acquired in the course of business for the purpose of imposing or collecting national taxes (hereinafter referred to as "tax information") to any other person, or shall not be used for any purpose other than the intended purpose. If a taxpayer is requested to provide tax information in violation of this Act, it shall be refused. The purpose of legislation of Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is to strictly limit the use of the tax information acquired from a taxpayer for any purpose other than the purpose of taxation by protecting the privacy of a tax official to ensure that the taxpayer becomes aware of a tax cooperation obligation and faithfully implement it, and to prevent a taxpayer from refusing to disclose the tax administration without restriction. Therefore, the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be rejected a request for disclosure of tax information.

On the other hand, a taxpayer under the Value-Added Tax Act, i.e., a person who starts a business subject to value-added tax, shall file an application with the competent district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business stating the business operator's personal information, the date of commencement of the business, and the date of commencement of the establishment of the place of business, and shall file a report when there is any change in the registered matters. The registration of business is required to identify the taxpayer for the efficient operation of the Value-Added Tax Act, facilitate the taxpayer's attitude and the details of the business, and make the taxpayer enter the tax number in all relevant documents, and it is reasonable to view that the tax office's business is included in the tax data for the purpose of

In light of the above legal principles, the information that the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose to the public may be deemed as falling under the "tax information under Article 81-13 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (including signature of the person who made a decision) by the public officials belonging to the Defendant in the course of handling the business registration statement and its attached documents submitted by Park Jong to change the business registration name concerning △△ Gas from the name of the Plaintiff, etc. to the sole name of the Plaintiff, etc.

B. The plaintiff's taxation information

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff himself is a joint person registered in the ○○ Tax Office with respect to ○○ Gas, and the documents submitted by Park Jong-A for business registration (revision) are not the documents of "other person" under Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

However, an application for business registration (Correction) filed by ParkA to correct business registration in the name of ParkA alone from the common name of the Plaintiff, etc. and its attached documents are merely tax information of ParkA and cannot be deemed as tax information of the Plaintiff. Before the Plaintiff’s application for business registration (Correction) by ParkA, the Plaintiff was registered in the common name of the Plaintiff, etc., including ParkA and the Plaintiff, or the application for business registration (Correction) by ParkA was filed in the last place against the Plaintiff’s will and later returned from ParkA’s sole name to the Plaintiff, etc. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is justified, and the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancellation part