Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap15382 ( June 26, 2015)

It is not subject to the payment of a tax evasion reporting reward because it is not an important material.

Inasmuch as the reporting person reported the tax evasion of the reporting person, but did not provide important information on such information, taxation was not made according to the reporting of tax evasion, and thus, the reporting person was not subject to the reporting of tax evasion (it cannot be deemed that the reporting person’s reporting of tax evasion was made, even if the date of investigation was conducted based on the filing of the reporting person’s reporting of tax evasion).

2015Nu49346 Revocation of revocation of disposition to refuse to pay compensation for tax evasion

Park AA

Seoul Regional Tax Office

November 17, 2015

December 22, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the defendant's refusal to pay compensation for tax evasion against the plaintiff on April 17, 2015 is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance, except in the following two cases, and thus, the same is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Details to be used or added;

(a) A part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance in paragraph 2 (c) of this Article;

Flaged parts

have been conducted in accordance with this section.

Paragraph 2

Paragraph 2(1)

(No. 1)

(a) item (a)

"Specific information by which the location of the material falling under subparagraph 1 can be identified" (No. 2)

(a) verify the location of the material equivalent to subparagraph (a);

such information as may be specified (b)

(No. 3)

(c)

B. Reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are set forth in paragraph 2(c) of the same Article.

The plaintiff argues that the defendant's claim for compensation is not denied because it is contrary to the facts of the B's tax evasion confirmed by the defendant after the investigation or the premise of the disposition of imposition due to the above facts, which are contrary to the facts of the B's tax evasion and thus are contrary to the premise of the disposition of imposition. Thus, it is difficult to accept without further need to be determined, since the defendant's petition for the defendant's tax administration is not a case of providing material to calculate the omitted tax amount which is the requirement of the payment of monetary rewards or the amount of illegally refunded or deducted tax amount.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.