Disposition revoking the revocation of a disposition not to pay a tax evasion reward;

Monetary rewards for tax evasion requested by the plaintiff are not subject to monetary rewards because they do not meet the above payment standards.

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

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's non-payment of the monetary reward for tax evasion information against the plaintiff on November 23, 2004 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 9, 2004, the Plaintiff collected KRW 84,575,50 of the gift tax omitted by the Defendant after conducting a tax investigation on the Ma○○○ and Park ○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “non-party”) that he reported his tax evasion to the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff applied for the payment of monetary rewards for tax evasion information to the Defendant pursuant to Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

B. On November 23, 201 of the same year, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the amount of tax collected after conducting a general investigation according to the Plaintiff’s information on tax evasion does not fall short of KRW 500 million of the standard tax evasion amount under Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion (the plaintiff's son's son's son's own son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son

(1) The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff’s report on the Plaintiff’s tax evasion is not a tax offense investigation under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, but a general tax offense investigation under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. However, the Nonparty’s act of evading gift tax by transferring the ownership of real estate donated by reason of the sale and purchase constitutes a tax evasion under Article 9(1)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the Defendant also committed a tax offense investigation, and thus, the Plaintiff should be paid a monetary reward under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

(2) The act of evading gift tax by transferring the ownership of real estate donated by the Nonparty on the ground of sale constitutes a crime of tax evasion under Article 9(1)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and thus, should be notified under Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. However, if the Defendant concludes a tax investigation by converting it into a general investigation without filing a complaint as a tax offense case, it is unlawful to have abused discretion.

(b) Related statutes;

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

(1) The Commissioner of the National Tax Service may pay a bounty within the limit of 100 million won to a person who has provided important data (excluding cases where a bounty is paid pursuant to Article 16 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act) in calculating the tax evasion or the illegally refunded or deducted tax amount for a person who has provided them: Provided, That where the tax evasion or the illegally refunded or deducted amount is less than the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree or the public official has provided

(3) Necessary matters concerning standards, methods, etc. for granting rewards under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

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

(2) "Amount prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the proviso to Article 84-2 (1) of the Act means five hundred million won.

Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

(1) A person who evades a tax or obtains a refund or deduction of a tax by fraudulent or other unlawful means shall be punished in accordance with the following subparagraphs:

3. In the case of national taxes other than those provided for in subparagraphs 1 and 2, the person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years, or by a fine equivalent to not more than three times the evaded tax amount or the refunded or deducted tax amount.

Article 9 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders

(1) When the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the head of a local tax office, or the head of a tax office obtains a conviction by investigating an offense case, he/she shall notify the person to pay the amount equivalent to the fine or minor fine, the amount equivalent to the additional collection charge of goods corresponding to confiscation or forfeiture, the amount equivalent to document delivery, and the expenses necessary for transporting

(2) If the offender is deemed incapable of complying with the notification, he shall immediately file an accusation without any notification under the preceding paragraph.

Article 16 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

The Commissioner of the National Tax Service may, under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, pay a bounty to a person who provides important data in calculating or punishing the amount of evaded, refunded or deducted tax by a person who violates the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act: Provided, That where a public official provides such data in connection with his/her duties, no bounty shall be paid.

Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Procedure for Punishment

(1) The amount of bounty pursuant to Article 16 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall be the amount equivalent to not less than 5/100 but not more than 15/100 of the amount falling under any of the following subparagraphs. In this case, the offer of important data shall be made in writing with the name, occupation and address specified and signed:

1. The amount equivalent to the liquor tax, in cases of crimes under Article 8 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

2. In cases of the crimes prescribed in Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the evaded, refunded or deducted amount of tax;

(3) Matters necessary for the detailed criteria and methods for payment of rewards under paragraph (1) shall be determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service.

Article 2 of the Regulations on the Payment of Information Rewards for Tax Evasion;

(1) The bounty under Article 16 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Procedure Act") and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter referred to as the "Framework Act") shall be paid to the persons who have provided important data in calculating the evaded, refunded, or deducted tax amount by those who have violated the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the tax amount evaded, refunded

Article 5 of the Regulations on the Payment of Information Rewards for Tax Evasion

Monetary rewards shall be paid after the amount of fine or minor fine notified in accordance with Article 9 of the Procedure Act is paid, or after the amount of fine, minor fine or imprisonment, etc. is determined by judgment or by judgment. In this case, it shall be paid after the period for raising an objection or the period for filing an action under Articles 55 (6) and (7), 61 and 68 of the Framework Act expires or after the procedures for filing an appeal or administrative litigation are completed.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On April 16, 2004, the Plaintiff made a false report on tax evasion with the content that the Nonparty evaded gift tax by preparing a sales contract and completing the registration of transfer of ownership by sale, despite having been donated by the Nonparty to the Defendant on the ○○○○○○○○○-dong, Seoul, ○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, by means of sale and purchase.

(2) Upon receipt and review of the Plaintiff’s above information, the Defendant confirmed that the Nonparty received the said real estate from Do○○, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on 1/2 shares on November 12, 1998, and on September 7, 2004, each of the Nonparty imposed and notified gift tax of KRW 42,287,830 on the Nonparty.

(3) Meanwhile, in conducting a tax investigation against the Nonparty on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s report on tax evasion, the Defendant decided to conduct a general investigation by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the Nonparty’s ratio of the Nonparty’s suspicion of tax evasion to the reported amount, equity with the partners, and nature of the crime, and conducted a general investigation, respectively, and imposed and notified gift tax on the tax evasion amount. However, there was no fact that the Nonparty imposed a disposition of tax evasion as

(4) On September 7, 2004, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the tax investigation and the results of treatment thereof, and rejected the Plaintiff’s application for payment of rewards on November 23, 2004 as seen earlier.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A: Evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 20, 21 and 22; Evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) In order to receive a reward under the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, a person designated by the provision of tax evasion information under such provision shall implement a notification disposition under Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the head of a local tax office, or the head of a tax office, upon receipt of the notification disposition from the Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the head of a district tax office, or shall be sentenced to a fine, etc. by decision of the court. In the event that the person conducts a tax investigation based on the data provided, he/she may not request a reward under the above provision. According to the provisions of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the investigation of the tax offense is an investigation based on the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act for the purpose of investigating the suspect's criminal facts and applying the penal provisions under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act to the non-party after receiving the report on tax evasion, taking into account the importance of the non-party's omission in the tax evasion report to the members, equity with the members, and character of the crime, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the above should be more specific and reasonable for the purpose of the investigation.

In light of the above-mentioned tax evasion size and method of the non-party, and the nature of the non-party's act, it does not necessarily mean that his act does not necessarily affect public interest or it is necessary to punish him in order to establish order in tax law. Article 4-3 (2) of the Regulations on the Investigation of Tax Offenses provides that "in selecting a person subject to investigation of tax offenses, in cases falling under Article 9-3 (3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, it shall be referred to the Committee for Deliberation on Investigation of Tax Offenses and in cases falling under Article 12-3 (3) of the same Act, it shall be decided whether to investigate the tax offenses by referring to the Committee for Deliberation of Tax Offenses in order to prevent the infringement of taxpayers' rights due to the south of the investigation of tax offenses. It is difficult to conduct an investigation of tax offenses immediately, but it is difficult to consider that the non-party's act does not go beyond the discretionary authority to conduct an investigation of tax offenses by referring it to the Committee for Deliberation of Tax Offenses operated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Supreme Court Decision 2007Du15247 ( October 26, 2007)]

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Although all of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, the grounds of appeal are without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition under Articles 4 and 5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the