Judgment on legal interest in the information disclosure system
Inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant has a considerable probability to hold and manage the shareholders' list from 1995 to 1999 of the instant company, it is dismissed as there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the non-disclosure decision.
Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [Confidentiality]
Busan District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-2531 (Law No. 21, 2017)
○○ Head of tax office
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
On May 31, 2017, the former Defendant’s office revoked the disposition of notification of non-disclosure on the request for disclosure of information made by the Plaintiff on May 31, 2017, and the Defendant stated the Plaintiff as “the date of non-disclosure decision is indicated as June 5, 2017,” but it is obvious that it is a clerical error).
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On May 25, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disclosure of information with respect to the register of shareholders from February 1, 1995 to 1999 of the company AAA Comprehensive Construction (the trade name at the time of its establishment is 'BB Construction' and 'AA Construction' as of February 23, 2006, and the trade name was changed as of December 22, 2008. hereinafter 'the company in this case' regardless of whether it was before or after the mutual change. B. The Defendant filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of information with respect to the register of shareholders from February 1, 1995 to 1999. The Plaintiff did not submit the list of shareholders to the tax authority on May 31, 201, 'the list of shareholders' to the Plaintiff, and there is no subject to disclosure. The current shareholder status of the company in this case is information about individuals by which specific persons can be identified, as prescribed by Article 81-13
In addition to one’s own shares, other than the holding of the Plaintiff’s shares may not be disclosed. However, from 1995 to 1996, the Plaintiff did not own shares for the period from 1995 to 196, and from 1997 to 199, the Plaintiff’s holding shares for the period from 12,000 shares (15%) was notified. The Plaintiff’s objection was lodged against the Defendant on June 22, 2017, but the Defendant dismissed it on July 3, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit
A. In light of the fact that the information disclosure system in the part requesting the revocation of the non-disclosure decision among the lawsuits in this case is a system that discloses information held and managed by public institutions, it is sufficient to prove that the person seeking the disclosure of information has a considerable probability of holding and managing the information. However, in the event that the public institutions do not retain and manage the information, there is no legal interest to seek the revocation of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information, barring any special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du9459, Jan. 13,
ex officio, there is no evidence to prove that there is a considerable probability that the Defendant would hold and manage the register of shareholders from 1995 to 1999 of the instant company, and there is no legal interest to seek cancellation of the non-disclosure decision.
As seen earlier, the Plaintiff only requested the disclosure of information on the register of shareholders of the instant company, but did not request the disclosure of information on the statement of stock transfer status. Even if the Plaintiff requested the disclosure of information on the statement of stock transfer status of the said company, the Defendant may refuse the disclosure of the pertinent information pursuant to Article 9(1)1 of the Official Information Disclosure Act and Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. The Plaintiff’s assertion is either ambiguous or groundless (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du11544, Mar. 12, 2004).
B. Of the instant lawsuit, part of the claim for performance of the duty to disclose information
The Plaintiff is seeking the Defendant to perform the duty of disclosure of the shareholder registry and detailed statement of stock transfer. However, the Administrative Litigation Act, ex officio, based on Article 3, provides for an appeal litigation, party litigation, civil suit, institution litigation, revocation litigation, invalidation, etc. as the type of appeal litigation, revocation litigation, invalidation, etc. as the type of litigation litigation, and illegality of omission. However, the type of litigation requesting the administrative agency to perform the duty of disclosure is not allowed. Thus, the part of requesting the disclosure of information in the instant lawsuit is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da15828, 15835, 15842, Feb. 13, 2004). 3.
Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.