1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On December 9, 2014, the Defendant’s monetary rewards for tax evasion filed against the Plaintiff.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the disposition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 2 to No. 18 of the second ground). Thus, the court's explanation concerning this part is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main sentence of

(However, following the second and second reasons, “D” was added to “A on November 5, 2014,” and “A No. 11” in Chapter 17 is added to “A”. 2. Whether the instant disposition was legitimate

A. The court's explanation concerning this part of the plaintiff's assertion is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 3th to 4th page). Thus, it refers to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. 1) First, we examine whether the materials submitted by the Plaintiff during the report on tax evasion constitutes “material material”. 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 “material material” in calculating the amount of tax evasion or the amount of tax unjustly refunded or deducted may be paid a monetary reward of up to 2 billion won. Article 84-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that a person who provides the material “material material” may be paid a monetary reward of up to 2 billion won. Article 84-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Feb. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) is an important material under subparagraph 1 of paragraph.