[1] Requirements for a person who provided major data which serves as the basis for calculating the evaded tax amount, exempted tax amount or fine amount to receive the grants under the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and whether Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is invalid in violation of Article 16

[2] Article 16 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that the amount of the fine determined under the same Act shall be paid as the subsidy because the subsidy is not a tax (negative) and it is in violation of the principle of no taxation without law under Article 59 of the Constitution to delegate specific subsidy calculation standards to the Enforcement Decree

[1] In order for the data provider to receive the subsidy under the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the person designated to have evaded the tax pursuant to the notification disposition under Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall be implemented by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the commissioner of a regional tax office, or the head of a district tax office in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, or shall be sentenced to a fine due to the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by the court decision. If the data provider conducted a tax investigation based on the data provided and again imposes the omitted tax, he/she shall not request the payment of the subsidy under the above provision, and if he/she becomes liable for the payment of the subsidy, he/she shall not request the payment of the subsidy under Article 16 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which is the legal basis for the

[2] The subsidy under Article 16 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders is not a tax, but a specified amount of the fine determined under Article 16 of the above Act shall be paid as a subsidy, and even if a specific subsidy was delegated to the Enforcement Decree, it shall not be deemed that it violates the principle of no taxation without law under Article 59 of the Constitution.

[1] Articles 12 and 16 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 2 and Article 4 of the Regulations on the Payment of Tax Evasion Information Subsidies (National Tax Service Directive No. 322) / [2] Article 59 of the Constitution, Article 16 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article

[2] Supreme Court Order 97Du48 dated December 9, 1997 (the same purport)

Plaintiff

Head of Ulsan District Office

Busan High Court Decision 97Gu2108 delivered on July 16, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 12 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that a person who provides important data in calculating the evaded tax amount or fine amount of a person who violates the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act may be granted an amount equivalent to not less than 10/100 but not more than 25 of the determined punishment amount under the conditions as prescribed by the Cabinet Order. Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that a person who provides data under Article 16 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall specify the name, occupation and domicile or temporary domicile of important data which serve as the basis for calculating the evaded tax amount, exempted tax amount or fine amount, and shall provide that a person who provides data in writing signed and sealed it to the National Tax Service, regional tax office, or tax office shall be granted a specified fine amount on the basis of the notice or final decision of the decision made by the Commissioner of the Local Tax Office in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and such provision provides that a person who provides data shall not be deemed to have been granted a specified fine amount on the basis of a final decision made by the Commissioner of the Punishment Act or the final decision made by the Commissioner of the Punishment Act.

Since the subsidies under Article 16 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders is not tax, the above Article 16 of the Act provides that a certain amount of fine determined under Article 16 of the above Act shall be paid as the subsidies, and even if the Enforcement Decree delegates the standards for calculating specific subsidies to the Enforcement Decree, it shall not be deemed that such subsidies violate the principle of no taxation without the law under

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)