Litigation against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful.

Acts, such as acts, mediation, solicitation, and de facto notification within administrative authority, which do not directly cause a direct legal change in the legal status of the other party or other interested persons, shall not be subject to an administrative disposition that is not subject to an appeal litigation.

Monetary rewards under Article 84-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes

2016Guhap2510 Revocation of Disposition rejecting a claim for payment of rewards

○ ○

○ Head of Regional Tax Office

2017.07.05

2017.19

1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

In electively, around June 26, 2015, the Defendant’s refusal to pay a monetary reward based on the reporting of tax evasion against the Plaintiff or the disposition of refusal to pay a monetary reward based on the reporting of tax evasion against the Plaintiff on September 24, 2015 is revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. Report on the Plaintiff’s tax evasion;

1) On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiff made a tax evasion report stating that “The Plaintiff omitted the value-added tax, etc. by receiving tax invoices differently from the actual transaction and concealing the actual transaction price using the borrowed account” to the Defendant, a joint representative of KK, KimD, OA (hereinafter referred to as the “Assistant”) and its customers.

2) Meanwhile, on June 24, 2014, HuCC reported to the Defendant on the same information as the above report on tax evasion prior to the Plaintiff’s aforementioned report on tax evasion.

B. Defendant’s notification of result of handling tax evasion and Plaintiff’s objection

1) On April 23, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the tax evasion reporting that “the Plaintiff used the information for taxation in accordance with the law and the principle” following the completion of the tax investigation with respect to the reported person.

2) On July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 20, 2015 to the effect that “the Defendant is dissatisfied with the disposition of refusal of payment of monetary rewards on April 23, 2015 by the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax appeal procedure”).

3) In the instant tax appeal procedure, the Defendant submitted a written reply to the effect that, according to Article 65-4(19) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26066, Feb. 3, 2015), the Defendant would only pay a monetary reward to the first person who reported the same case. The Plaintiff’s assertion seeking the payment of a monetary reward is without merit (hereinafter “instant reply”).

4) On September 30, 2016, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 14-4, Gap evidence 15-1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

(a) Relevant legal principles;

The term "administrative disposition", which is the object of an appeal litigation, refers to an act under public law of an administrative agency, which is directly related to the rights and obligations of the people, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations, or giving rise to other legal effects with respect to a specific matter, and an act, etc., which does not directly change the legal status of the other party or other persons concerned, such as actions, intermediation, solicitation, de facto notification, etc. inside the administrative authority, is not an administrative disposition that is the object of an appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu433, Mar.

B. Whether there exists a disposition rejecting the payment of a monetary reward based on a report on tax evasion around June 26, 2015

On June 25, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted by registered mail the “written request for the payment of monetary rewards for tax evasion report to the Defendant on November 11, 2013, 2013 ***********. The Defendant asserts that he/she refused the payment of monetary rewards by telephone notice to the Plaintiff on June 26, 2016. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff applied for the payment of monetary rewards in accordance with the report on tax evasion report to the Defendant on the said temporary date alone, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant made a telephone notice to the Plaintiff on June 26, 2016, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant issued a disposition to refuse the payment of monetary rewards in accordance with the report on tax evasion report to the Plaintiff on the said temporary date.

C. Whether there exists a disposition rejecting the payment of a monetary reward on September 24, 2015

The Plaintiff asserts in the instant tax appeal procedure that the Defendant submitted the instant written response and rejected the payment of monetary rewards on September 24, 2015. The instant written response is merely a document submitted by the Defendant to the Tax Tribunal regarding the Plaintiff’s request for adjudication during the instant tax appeal procedure, and cannot be deemed a disposition. Moreover, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant issued a disposition against the Plaintiff to refuse the payment of monetary rewards on September 24, 2015.

D. Sub-committee

Article 84-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12848, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter “former Framework Act on National Taxes”) provides that “The standards for payment of monetary rewards, methods of payment, etc. under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree,” and Article 84-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2606, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter “the former Framework Act on National Taxes”) provides that “The case where monetary rewards may be paid to the Plaintiff on June 26, 2015 or September 24, 2015 shall be subject to an administrative disposition for which no lawsuit is filed against the Plaintiff.” Furthermore, Article 65-4(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26066, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter “the former Framework Act on National Taxes”) stipulates that the Plaintiff’s first rejection of monetary rewards.

3. Conclusion

Since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss all of the lawsuits. It is so decided as per Disposition.