Seocho 2014west 4661 ( December 09, 2014)

Since the amount of additional tax collected by the reporter is less than KRW 50,000,000, which is the standard amount for calculating the monetary reward, it does not meet the requirements

The amount of taxation related to the notice of tax evasion shall be closed to the public pursuant to the provisions of Article 81-13 of the National Techniques, and the reward shall not be paid as a failure to meet the payment requirements pursuant to the provisions of Article 84-2 of the same Act

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

2015Guhap2246 The revocation of the revocation of the revocation of the payment of monetary rewards.

Park AA

Head of the Do Tax Office

June 4, 2015

June 18, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On August 29, 2014, the Defendant revoked the monetary reward payment disposition issued by the Plaintiff on August 29, 2014 (the Plaintiff entered the date and time of the disposition in the complaint as “ September 3, 2014,” but the evidence No. 3 appears to be a clerical error, in light of the statement No. 3.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 13, 2014, the Plaintiff closed the CCC, and sent B to the Defendant, on May 13, 2014, the Plaintiff made a report on tax evasion (hereinafter “the report of tax evasion in this case”) stating that “The Plaintiff is evading taxes through a thorough investigation as it actually operates CCC using the name of the spouse of EDR.”

B. The Defendant confirmed the omission of KRW 72 million between July 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013 by the reporting of the instant tax evasion, and imposed value-added tax and general income tax on the reported person, as a result of the on-site investigation of the reported person from July 14, 2014 to 18, 2014.

C. On July 29, 2014, the Defendant, on May 13, 2014, notified the Plaintiff of the result of handling tax evasion reports with the purport that the report was imposed in accordance with the laws and regulations on the instant tax evasion report, and the details of specific processing, such as the amount of additional tax imposed on the reporter, shall not be disclosed pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) and Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

D. On August 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the disclosure of information on the amount of taxation and the amount of monetary rewards on the instant report on tax evasion, and the Defendant on August 29, 2014, the Plaintiff does not receive monetary rewards due to lack of the requirements for payment of monetary rewards. ② The Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the reply to the purport that the amount of taxation related to the reporting on tax evasion against the reporting person is confidential pursuant to Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). However, the instant reply does not contain specific grounds or reasons for the “conformity with the requirements for payment of monetary rewards.”

E. On September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 9, 2014.

(A) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings in Gap's Evidence No. 1, 2, 3, and Eul's Evidence No. 1 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The non-disclosure part of the amount of taxation imposed on the respondent

The "tax information", which is an information subject to non-disclosure under Article 81-13 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, refers to data submitted by a taxpayer to fulfill tax liability under tax-related Acts or data acquired by a tax official for the purpose of imposing and collecting national taxes. However, the amount of taxation on a reporter (hereinafter referred to as the "information of this case") is merely the result produced by the defendant based on the above taxation data and does not constitute "tax information" under the above provision

2) Part of the reward site payment

A) The instant disposition is in violation of Article 23 of the Administrative Procedures Act, given that it did not present specific grounds and reasons for the instant disposition.

B) The Defendant informed the Plaintiff that the monetary reward should be paid upon reporting tax evasion. The guidance did not appear at all, and the Plaintiff trusted that the monetary reward payment criteria can be paid even on the sole basis of the tax evasion report. The Defendant’s disposition rejecting the monetary reward payment on the ground that it does not meet the monetary reward payment criteria is in violation of the principle of trust protection.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) As to the non-disclosure part of the instant information

A) Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "no information shall be disclosed to the public under other Acts or confidential matters." Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter referred to as "tax information") provides that "no tax official shall provide or divulge data submitted by a taxpayer to fulfill a tax liability under tax-related Acts, or data, etc. acquired in the course of performing his/her duties to impose and collect national taxes (hereinafter referred to as "tax information") to any other person, or use them for purposes other than its original purpose." Paragraph (3) provides that "the tax official shall refuse to provide tax information if requested by him/her in violation of paragraph (1)."

B) Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that taxation information shall be kept confidential or confidential, not merely a ground provision for punishing a tax official who simply divulges tax information, and such provision constitutes other Acts under Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act. Furthermore, the term "tax information" under Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes refers to "data submitted by a taxpayer to fulfill a tax liability provided for in tax law or data acquired in the course of business for the purpose of imposing or collecting national taxes." This refers not only to data submitted by a taxpayer or data acquired by a tax official from a taxpayer in the course of performing a tax-related duty, but also to all the data acquired by a tax official in the course of performing a tax-related duty, as well as the data submitted by a taxpayer.

I will see that it is.

C) Therefore, the instant information that the Plaintiff seeks to disclose is “tax information” as stipulated in Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under the said provision. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

2) As to the portion of the monetary reward site

A) Whether procedural defects exist

(1) The fact that the instant disposition only contains the content, but does not contain any content as to what reason it is not required to pay the monetary reward, is recognized as above.

(2) However, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 3 and arguments, the defendant delivered the disposition of this case to the plaintiff on August 29, 2014, accompanied by the document that "an information about the handling of tax evasion reports" to the plaintiff. The document states that "an omission tax amount of at least 50 million won shall be paid and the disposition of imposition, etc. shall become final and conclusive as a result of the termination of the procedure for raising a request for payment of monetary rewards." The following facts can be acknowledged. As seen above, the amount of taxation imposed on the respondent cannot be disclosed pursuant to Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the amount of taxation cannot be written in the disposition of this case. In addition to the circumstances that the plaintiff, upon objection to the disposition of this case, did not directly state specific grounds and reasons for "in the disposition of this case's failure to meet the requirements for payment of monetary rewards" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du3848, Dec. 27, 2009).

B) Whether the principles of trust protection are violated

(1) In general in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to an act of an administrative agency, first, an administrative agency should name a public opinion that is the subject of trust to an individual, second, there is no reason attributable to the individual with respect to the trust of the individual, third, the individual should have trusted and trusted the opinion name of the administrative agency, third, the administrative agency should have conducted any act corresponding thereto. Fourth, the administrative agency's disposition contrary to its opinion name should result in infringing on the interests of the individual who trusted the opinion name. Lastly, when taking an administrative disposition in accordance with its opinion name, it should not be likely to seriously undermine the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du13592, Feb. 24, 2006; 2004Du466, Jun. 9, 2006).

(2) Based on the above legal principles, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant issued a public opinion expressing that the Plaintiff would be paid a monetary reward even in a case where the Defendant did not meet the payment criteria under the relevant statutes regarding the payment of monetary reward based on the report of tax evasion. Thus, even if the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the details of the payment criteria in detail at the time of the instant report of tax evasion, the instant disposition cannot be deemed to contravene the principle of trust protection. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.