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

A. The Defendant is a certified tax accountant who carries out business, such as a tax return agent, under the trade name of the Gu and Si Tax Accounting Office.

B. On April 28, 2017, the Plaintiff sold 969m2 to E and F the amount of 712 millionm2,000,000,000, which was owned by the Plaintiff, to the Defendant for a tax return agent, such as capital gains tax, etc.

C. The defendant shall act for the plaintiff to the tax office on behalf of the plaintiff.

When reporting the capital gains tax from the sale stated in the subsection, the applicant filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax due to farmland substitute land, and the Plaintiff paid the tax amount calculated accordingly.

However, since then, the head of competent tax office has imposed penalty tax of 13,430,621, penalty tax of 14,464,779, and penalty tax of 1,343,062, and penalty tax of 1,446,477 for underreporting of local income tax on the ground that it is not subject to reduction of capital gains tax due to the Plaintiff's farmland substitute land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's documents were insufficient to examine the documents provided to the defendant for the handling of delegated affairs, and if the documents are not supplemented, the defendant must confirm the reason for the failure to supplement them, and as a result, should make the plaintiff suffer damage from the delegating plaintiff by providing appropriate explanation and advice from the tax specialist. However, in violation of this duty of care, the plaintiff did not take measures such as requesting supplementation despite lack of documents on the income amount necessary for filing a tax return received from the plaintiff, and thereby, caused damage equivalent to the total amount of additional tax amount of KRW 30,684,939 (the aggregate amount of additional tax as stated in Paragraph 1-C of the above 1-3) as seen in the above.

Therefore, the defendant is equivalent to the above 30,684,939 won to the plaintiff.