The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The following facts are acknowledged as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and Eul evidence No. 1 can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings.

On May 16, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) around May 16, 2018, C, the representative director of the Company B (hereinafter “B”) in the National Tax Service Home Branch, made a tax evasion report (hereinafter “instant report”) to the effect that C, the Plaintiff, at the time of filing a tax evasion report (hereinafter “instant report”), was attached to the settlement documents of accounts publicly announced by the Plaintiff at the time of filing a tax return on the corporate tax of KRW 15,048,00,000,000 in 2015; and (b) KRW 10,808,50,000 as its interest-free loan; and (c) exempted other shareholders from the debt amount of KRW 1,435,00,000 in 20,000 in 200,000,0000 in 15,000 won in 20,000 won in 200.

B. On March 4, 2019, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation based on this, and collected gift tax of KRW 143,675,710 (excluding additional tax of KRW 57,700,167) from D on the basis of the tax investigation. On November 1, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of tax evasion reporting, and notified the Plaintiff on November 1, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the instant information did not meet the requirements for “the payment of additional tax of KRW 50,00 or more by material material” (hereinafter “instant notification”).

C. On December 10, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Board of Audit and Inspection on December 10, 2019, but the Board of Audit and Inspection dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on June 9, 2020.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. An appeal may be filed against a tax office to seek revocation of a disposition that the tax office decides not to pay a monetary reward by filing an application for payment of a monetary reward against the tax office, as the person who provided the first defendant's defense prior to the merits of the parties. The plaintiff did not have filed an application for payment of a monetary reward, and therefore there is no disposition of rejection of the administrative

The notification of this case is submitted by the provider of the data.