1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a tax evasion report with the Defendant that B and C (hereinafter referred to as “Assistant”) omitted capital gains tax.

From August 25, 2014 to October 29, 2014, the Defendant investigated the recipient, etc., and confirmed that the recipient, etc., reported the amount of capital gains and global income to less than 1,00,000,000, global income tax, global income tax of KRW 1,314,00,000, and gift tax of KRW 1,421,00,000,00.

The Defendant calculated KRW 213,323,00 based on the amount of monetary reward and the amount of additional tax on capital gains tax, and provided guidance on the payment of monetary reward to the Plaintiff. On September 6, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment of monetary reward to the Defendant and received the said monetary reward on October 4, 2016.

On February 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection on October 12, 2016, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 21, 2017, but the Tax Tribunal filed an additional application for the payment of rewards.

The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed on the ground that the defendant cannot be viewed as a disposition rejecting it.

On July 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for payment of KRW 166,00,000 for a monetary reward for the amount of gift tax additionally collected. On August 30, 2017, the Defendant rejected the application on the ground that the Plaintiff’s tax evasion report does not constitute “material material” under Article 84-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 1520, Dec. 19, 2017; hereinafter “former Framework Act on National Taxes”).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On September 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 26, 2017, but was dismissed on December 21, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 10, 11, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the whole purport of the pleading is legitimate.