Information requested by the Plaintiff falls under taxation data prescribed in Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Article 81-13 (1) (proviso) 6 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that taxpayers' tax information may be provided exceptionally in cases where taxpayers' tax information is requested pursuant to the provisions of other Acts, but the provisions of the Information Disclosure Act cannot be deemed to be included in "the provisions of other Acts" under subparagraph 6 of the same Article.

Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2011Guhap398444 The revocation of revocation of non-disclosure of genetic subsidy information

Maximum XX

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

April 19, 2012

May 31, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of non-disclosure of value-added tax made against the Plaintiff on October 14, 2011 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 3, 1998, the Plaintiff is a retired person on June 6, 2009 while serving as a taxi engineer in XX taxi corporation (hereinafter “instant company”).

B. On October 10, 201, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose the information on the value-added tax reduced for the Plaintiff’s operating vehicle (hereinafter “instant information”) to the instant company as to the reduction of value-added tax for a general taxi transport business entity pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”), between the date of entry into force of the said system and June 6, 2009.

C. On October 11, 201, the Defendant: (a) Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act; and (b) Article 9 of the National Tax Act;

This case constitutes Article 81-13 of this Act and thus it cannot be disclosed to the public (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The reduction of value-added tax for general taxi transport business operators is aimed at improving the treatment and welfare of transport employees. However, the company of this case did not pay the amount of value-added tax reduction or use it for transport employees, including the Plaintiff. If the Defendant did not disclose the instant information, the Plaintiff did not receive the said money from the company of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (Claimant for Information Disclosure)

(1) All citizens shall have the right to request the disclosure of information.

Article 9 (Information Subject to Non-Disclosure) (1) Any information held and managed by public institutions shall be subject to disclosure: Provided, That the following information may not be disclosed:

1. Orders delegated by other Acts or subordinate statutes (National Assembly documentary regulations, the Supreme Court Regulations, the Constitutional Court Regulations, the National Election Commission Regulations, and

Information prescribed as confidential or confidential by Presidential Decree and Municipal Ordinance (limited to the Presidential Decree and Municipal Ordinance)

【National Tax Basic Act

Article 81-13 (Confidentiality) (1) No tax official shall provide or leak data submitted by a taxpayer to fulfill tax liability under tax-related Acts, or data, etc. acquired on duty for the imposition and collection of national taxes (hereinafter referred to as "tax information") to any other person, or use them for any purpose other than original purposes: Provided, That in any of the following cases, he/she may provide tax information by a taxpayer to the extent consistent with the purpose of use:

6. Where tax information is asked for by other Acts.

(3) If the request for taxation information is made in violation of paragraphs (1) and (2), a tax official shall refuse such request.

C. Determination

1) All citizens have the right to request the public institution to disclose information (Article 5 of the Information Disclosure Act), and the public institution must disclose the information to the public in response to the citizen’s request, unless it does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act. However, Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that the disclosure of the information acquired for the purpose of imposing and collecting national taxes may be prohibited by other Acts, etc., and Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a tax official shall not provide or disclose the information acquired for the purpose of imposing and collecting national taxes to other persons or shall not use the information for the purpose other than the purpose of taxation. The purpose of the above provision of the Framework Act on National Taxes is to strictly limit the use of the information acquired by a tax official for the purpose of imposing and collecting taxes to the maximum extent possible, thereby protecting the taxpayer to ensure that the tax official becomes aware of and faithfully performing his/her duty to cooperate in tax payment, and to prevent the taxpayer from refusing the tax official’s request for disclosure of the above provision (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du14.

2) According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the instant information is related to the collection and reduction of value-added tax on the instant company. It is determined that the instant information constitutes taxation data under Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 1 of the Information Disclosure Act. Furthermore, Article 81-13 (1) 6 proviso of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulates that "where taxation information is requested in accordance with the provisions of other Acts, the taxpayer's tax information may be provided exceptionally, but the information disclosure provision under the Information Disclosure Act is not included in "the provisions of other Acts" under subparagraph 6 of the said proviso.

3) The Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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