1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's main grounds for appeal to the following 2. Thus, this case shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Plaintiff C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”).

(E) Seoul Regional Tax Office E (hereinafter referred to as “E”) due to reporting on the tax evasion of a taxpayer;

(2) The Plaintiff’s information constitutes an important information on the collection of tax evasion, as long as the Plaintiff’s information on embezzlement was reported as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s tax evasion report on the Plaintiff’s tax evasion report constitutes an important information on the collection of tax evasion; (b) Nonparty G embezzlement, the former representative director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office and the Central District Tax Office discovered as a result of the Plaintiff’s tax investigation on E of the Seoul Central Tax Office and the Central District Tax Office; and (c) even if the Plaintiff’s legal judgment on the above embezzlement (i.e., whether embezzlement was caused by virtual transactions or omitting sales on the premise that it was true transactions) was erroneous, the Plaintiff’s information constitutes an important information on the collection of tax evasion.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of all the evidence submitted in the first instance court and the trial court, a tax investigation of the Seoul Regional Tax Office E was commenced only due to the Plaintiff’s tax evasion report.

The Seoul Regional Tax Office cannot be deemed to have discovered the embezzlement of Nonparty G, the former representative director of C, using the Plaintiff’s information on tax evasion.

① The Plaintiff is the National Tax Service on December 18, 2013.