1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 21, 2014, May 7, 2015, and June 9, 2015, the Plaintiff reported the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office or the Defendant three times on three occasions, that “B” is the representative director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office or the Defendant, and “B” is the representative director of “C” (hereinafter “C”). The president is D, who was the person of D, and that “B evaded tax in a manner that would not issue a tax invoice by distributing the construction cost to the borrowed account while performing construction work, such as multi-household housing, in Pakistan-si and Jeju-do.” (hereinafter “instant information”).

B. After conducting an investigation into B, etc., the Defendant collected income tax and value-added tax from E, the actual business operator, around December 2015.

C. On December 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of a monetary reward for tax evasion with the Defendant. On December 19, 2017, the Defendant rendered a decision to refuse the payment of a monetary reward (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the instant information is not subject to the payment of a monetary reward under Article 84-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 65-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.”

On March 6, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed and requested the Tax Tribunal for a trial on March 6, 2018. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the request on June 29, 2018, and the Plaintiff was notified of the above decision of dismissal on July 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that the information of this case does not constitute "important material" under Article 84-2 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

However, tax evasion, which is made in a way that does not issue a tax invoice, is a very typical type, and it can be deemed that specific information has already been provided even with the name of the company, the representative director in the form of the company (B), and the real name (D). The defendant, by investigating B according to the plaintiff's information, becomes aware that the actual business operator is E by investigating B.