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

A. The Plaintiff is a certified tax accountant under the Certified Tax Accountant Act. B is a personal entrepreneur who runs the same business as specified in the table 1 below, and is subject to verification of bona fide return as prescribed by Article 70-2 of the Income Tax Act in relation to the return of global income tax for the taxable year from 2011 to

(hereinafter referred to as "the Project of this case" in this section). List

1. Business of manufacturing 1 C main gold-type 2D main metal-type 3 E real estate rental business;

B. The Plaintiff submitted to the director of the tax office in the pertinent taxable year, to the director of the tax office in North Daegu, “the final return of global income tax base and the calculation statement of payment” (hereinafter “the global income tax return”) in B’s name as his representative, and submitted the “written confirmation of bona fide return” in the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “written confirmation of bona fide return”). The following table was not actually disbursed as the necessary

2. The amount recorded in the false verification column shall be included in the necessary expenses (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each defective entry in the instant case”), and even if there were no evidence to prove the eligibility regarding the disbursement of each of the above amounts in the certificate of bona fide return, the false verification of each of the instant cases “each of the instant false records” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant false records in the instant case, and combined with each of the instant false records”) and thereafter B shall thereafter be indicated as follows.

2. The total income tax amount equivalent to the amount stated in the tax evasion column has been omitted.

Schedule

2. Amount of false confirmations for a taxable year: 88,363,000 won for 252,00,000,000 won for a taxable year; and

C. On September 24, 2014, the Defendant imposed one year of suspension from office (period: from October 20, 2014 to October 19, 2015) and five million won of a fine for negligence on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the duty of this case as to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-7, Eul evidence Nos. 1-11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;