Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-5810 ( September 30, 2016)

A disposition rejecting the disclosure of information by a taxpayer on the grounds that the information is obtained from the taxpayer is lawful.

Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes has the meaning as a special law of the Information Disclosure Act for the disclosure of information by public institutions. Thus, Article 81-13 of the same Act cannot be deemed as a ground provision for information disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act.

Article 9 (Information Subject to Non-Disclosure)

Article 81-13 (Confidentiality)

2016Nu6849 Revocation of revocation of refusal to disclose information

○ ○

○○ Head of Tax Office 2

April 19, 2017

April 29, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. On December 4, 2015, the decision of the first instance court rendered by the director of the headquarters against the plaintiff on December 4, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "information of this case") that rejected disclosure of information on the part related to OO related to OO, rejection disposition of information disclosure concerning the part related to OO related among the information of this case made by the director of the headquarters against the plaintiff on December 14, 2015, and rejection disposition of information disclosure concerning the information of this case made by the director of the headquarters against the plaintiff on December 21, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court are as follows, except for the addition of the following ‘2. Additional Judgment' as to the plaintiff's assertion emphasized in this Court, so the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Additional determination

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant information should be disclosed in accordance with the proviso of Article 81-13(1)8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 9(1)6(c) and proviso of Article 9(1)7(b) of the Information Disclosure Act.

Article 81-13 (1) (proviso)(8) of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulates that "where taxation information is requested pursuant to the provisions of other Acts, the provision of taxation information by taxpayers may be exceptionally provided."

Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes has the meaning as a special law on the disclosure of information as a general law on the disclosure of information as a public institution, and Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act, which provides for the general right to claim information under Article 81-13 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, cannot be deemed to include the provisions of Article 81-13 (1) of the same Act. The above proviso does not include the provisions of Article 81-13 (1) of the same Act with respect to "tax information" under Article 81-13 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, unless the application of Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act is excluded, so long as it does not fall under the information subject to non-disclosure pursuant to the provisions of the Information Disclosure Act. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants is dismissed in entirety.