the revocation suit shall be filed within 90 days from the date the person becomes aware of the disposition, etc.

When any person is dissatisfied with a decision on non-disclosure or partial disclosure of information, he/she may file an objection with the relevant public institution within 30 days from the date on which he/she is notified of the decision on whether to disclose information, and where the public institution has notified the rejection or dismissal of the objection, he/she shall file a lawsuit for revocation within 90

Article 18 of the Official Information Disclosure Act

Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-12410 ( October 27, 2016)

AAAAA Consulting Co., Ltd. 4

BB Director of the Tax Office

on 13, 2016

on October 27, 2016

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

In the Special Tax Investigation by the National Tax Service conducted from September 26, 2006 to December 5, 2006 by the Defendant, each Plaintiff’s taxation basis for KRW 2.5 billion imposed on the Plaintiffs, the recovery details of each tax item, the tax base and calculated tax amount, the written answer, the written confirmation, the confirmation, the written confirmation, the tax investigation report, and the details of the payment of the collected tax amount are disclosed to the Plaintiffs.

1. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. Under the current Administrative Litigation Act, the so-called “performance of obligations” lawsuit that orders an administrative agency to actively conduct a certain act is not allowed (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992). Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. The instant lawsuit is unlawful even if the instant lawsuit is filed with the Defendant seeking revocation of the Defendant’s rejection disposition against the Plaintiffs’ request for disclosure of information. The reasons are as follows.

1) As to the lawsuit of Plaintiff AAA consulting corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff AAA consulting”);

A) Each of the following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the relevant branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings:

(1) On April 27, 2015, Plaintiff AAA consulting filed a request with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for disclosure of information on the details of recovery by items of investigation related to the regular tax investigation from September 26, 2006 to December 5, 2006, including the details of recovery by items of investigation, tax base and calculated tax amount, written response (any signature and seal of the Plaintiff), written confirmation (any signature and seal of the Plaintiff), written resolution of correction, written notification of the completion of corporate tax investigation, post management (including the payment status of calculated tax amount), and relief method for documentary evidence 1.

(2) On May 15, 2015, the Defendant, upon receipt of the above request for disclosure of information from the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, notified Plaintiff AAAA consulting on May 15, 2015 on the disclosure of the current status of the payment of notified tax according to the revised decision, among the follow-up management matters, and on the grounds that the remaining information has not been discarded as the preservation period expires, and Plaintiff AAAA consulting received the instant disposition on May 21, 2015.

(3) Plaintiff AAA consulting is dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection against the Defendant on June 19, 2015.

(4) On July 6, 2015, the Defendant notified Plaintiff AAA consulting of the decision to dismiss the objection (hereinafter “instant decision”) on the ground that there is no information subject to the request for disclosure of information other than the information partially disclosed. Plaintiff AAAAA consulting received the instant decision on July 8, 2015.

(5) The Plaintiff AAA consulting filed the instant lawsuit on November 18, 2015.

B) Article 18(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act provides that "a petitioner may file an objection in writing with the relevant public agency within 30 days from the date on which he/she is notified of the decision on whether to disclose the information, if the petitioner is dissatisfied with the decision on non-disclosure or partial disclosure of the information," and Article 18(4) of the same Act provides that "a public agency shall notify the applicant of the fact that the applicant may file an administrative appeal or administrative litigation when he/she has made a decision to dismiss or dismiss the objection," and the main text of Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "the applicant shall file an administrative appeal or administrative litigation within 90 days from the date on which

In full view of the above provisions, where an applicant for information disclosure raises an objection against a non-disclosure decision or partial disclosure decision and the relevant public institution decides to dismiss or dismiss an objection, the applicant for information disclosure shall file a lawsuit seeking revocation of the non-disclosure decision or partial disclosure decision of the public institution within 90 days from the date of receipt of the decision

C) However, Plaintiff AAA consulting received the instant decision from July 8, 2015 to 90 days after receipt of the instant decision, and filed the instant lawsuit on November 18, 2015, which is apparent in fact. The Plaintiff AAAAA consulting lawsuit was filed after the lapse of the filing period, and thus is unlawful.

2) With respect to the lawsuit filed by the rest of the plaintiffs except for the plaintiffs AAA consulting (hereinafter referred to as the "Bs payment plaintiffs"), the rest of the plaintiffs did not request the defendant to disclose information, and the defendant did not take any measure against the rest of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the remaining plaintiffs' lawsuit is unlawful since there is no disposition that is the object of the revocation lawsuit.

2. Conclusion

Since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.