Where a public institution fails to hold and manage such information, there is no legal interest to seek revocation of the disposition of rejection of information disclosure, except in extenuating circumstances.

Although it is sufficient for a person who seeks information disclosure to prove that there is a considerable probability that the information to be disclosed is owned and managed by administrative agencies, there is no legal interest to seek revocation of the disposition of refusal of information disclosure unless there is a special reason to the contrary.

Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2013Guhap15132 Revocation of revocation of refusal to disclose information

AA

Defendant Seoul Regional Tax Office

February 7, 2014

March 18, 2014

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

On May 20, 2013, the part concerning the investigation information on the shares of the network BB among the disposition rejecting a request for disclosure of information made by the Defendant against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 10, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for disclosure of all data related to the tax investigation (such as a detailed statement of tax investigation, report, etc.) conducted with the CCC Co., Ltd. from August 18, 2011 to November 30, 201 (hereinafter “instant information”).

B. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service transferred the above claim to the Seoul Regional Tax Office, which is the competent government office, and notified the Plaintiff of it. On May 20, 2013, the Defendant sent the claim to the Plaintiff. On the ground that “Information for which the Plaintiff seeks disclosure to the Plaintiff constitutes “information provided as confidential or non-public information by other Acts or orders delegated by other Acts” under Article 9(1)1 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, which constitutes “data submitted by the taxpayer to fulfill the duty to pay taxes under tax-related Acts or information acquired for the purpose of imposing or collecting national taxes, etc.” (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

Facts that there is no dispute about recognition, and described in Gap evidence 1 to 3

2. Defenses and judgments before the merits

A. The Plaintiff is seeking the revocation of the part concerning the information on the investigation of the net BB’s shares in the instant disposition (hereinafter referred to as “information subject to the revocation of the instant disposition”). Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful because there is no legal interest, since it does not retain and manage the information subject to the revocation of the instant disposition.

B. In light of the fact that the information disclosure system is a system that discloses information held and managed by public institutions in its state, it is sufficient to prove that there is a considerable probability that a person who seeks to disclose information will hold and manage the information to be disclosed. However, if a public institution does not hold and manage such information, there is no legal interest in seeking the revocation of a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du9459, Jan. 13, 2006). Thus, as a result of the court’s non-disclosure inspection and examination of the information of this case, the defendant does not retain and manage the information of this case that the plaintiff seeks to disclose by the lawsuit of this case, and there is no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case. Accordingly, the defendant’s defense prior to the merits is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.