Tax information shall not mean the provision of tax information according to an order for submission, and it shall not be deemed information subject to disclosure due to an order for submission.

The proviso of Article 81-13(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulates that a taxpayer's tax information may be provided exceptionally when the court requests taxation information by an order for submission, etc. by the court. However, the provision of taxation information refers to the provision following the order for submission, and thus, it cannot be seen as information subject to disclosure

Article 81 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012Guhap18615 Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Information Disclosure

XX Kim

The Director of the Pacific District Office

October 18, 2012

November 22, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

A disposition rejecting information disclosure made by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on June 4, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 19, 201, the Plaintiff filed a loan claim lawsuit against the KimA, and “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 00 and the amount of KRW 000,00, calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from January 1, 2009 to March 25, 2011, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” was sentenced to a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, and the above judgment became final and conclusive to the extent of the appeal period.

B. On September 15, 201, the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan against KimB was provisionally seized the claim for the refund of the lease deposit against KimB as indicated in Appendix 1 against KimB, and on September 15, 201, filed an application for the payment order with KimB to pay KRW 000 and delayed payment damages, etc. on the ground that KimB’s claim for the refund of the lease deposit against KimB was provisionally seized. The order was served on October 7, 201, and confirmed on October 22, 2011.

C. After that, when the Plaintiff intended to enforce enforcement against 0CC, the heir of KimB, based on the above final payment order, the 0CC filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking refusal of compulsory execution based on the above payment order (U.S. District Court subsidies 201Gadan51571). Upon the Plaintiff’s request, the competent judge of the lawsuit ordered the Defendant to submit documents regarding the information for taxation listed in the annexed sheet (hereinafter “instant information”), and the order reached April 5, 2012. The order was issued on the same date on May 9, 2012.

D. On May 15, 2012, the Defendant issued a reply to the effect that the said judge will review and determine the relationship between the Plaintiff and the lessor and the content of the lawsuit, etc. on the following grounds: (a) the total amount of revenue of KimB, 00CC, the total amount of basic expenses, and matters concerning the reporter (the matters of the report in 2012 are excluded from the filing deadline) for the year to which they belong, among the report on current status of current status of report in 2009 to 2011; and (b) the “order for submission” was submitted: (c) the report stating personal information of third parties other

E. Accordingly, on May 3, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of the instant information pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Information Disclosure Act. On June 4, 2012, the Defendant rejected the disclosure of the instant information on the grounds that the disclosure of the instant information may not be made public pursuant to Article 9(1)1 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) on the grounds that the instant information is non-disclosure under Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

F. Meanwhile, KimB and WhiteCC submitted to the Defendant an annual report on the current status of business places from 2009 to 2011 as part of the assessment data on the xxDD, and the report on the current status of business places, the revenue review table of the housing rental business entity in 2012, and the revenue review table of the housing rental business entity in 2012 did not have been submitted the current report deadline. However, the "report on the current status of business and the revenue review table of the housing rental business entity that the Plaintiff requested disclosure" include personal information of the reporter and lessee as shown in the attached personal information.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 15, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

This case’s information constitutes an exception to providing tax information by a court’s order to submit tax information pursuant to Article 81-13(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, the instant disposition rejecting disclosure of the instant information is unlawful even though it should be disclosed pursuant to the main sentence of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that “Information that is kept confidential or confidential by other Acts or orders issued under other Acts shall be classified as information subject to non-disclosure.” The main text of Article 81-13(1) and (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, in principle, shall not provide or disclose to other persons, or use for purposes other than the purpose of imposing or collecting national taxes, data submitted by a taxpayer to perform a tax liability prescribed by the tax-related Acts, or data acquired in the course of business for the purpose of imposing or collecting national taxes (hereinafter referred to as “tax information”). The legislative purport of Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is to ensure that a tax official is requested to provide tax information in violation of Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes by strictly limiting the use of the information acquired by a taxpayer for purposes other than the purpose of taxation, other than the purpose of taxation, to ensure that the taxpayer becomes aware of and faithfully performing a tax cooperation obligation, and thus, to prevent the taxpayer from refusing to provide tax information disclosure.

2) In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, the fact that the judge in charge of the case No. 201Gao 51571 was ordered the defendant to submit documents on the instant information two occasions is acknowledged as having been ordered to do so. However, even if the defendant is obligated to submit data to the judge in charge of the instant case according to the above order to submit documents, the instant information still constitutes information subject to non-disclosure pursuant to Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act, Article 81-13(1) main sentence and (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, notwithstanding the above order to submit documents.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the information of this case is subject to disclosure is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.