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

A. From November 1, 1979, the Plaintiff was a person registered as a tax accountant and engaged in tax business, and around 2007, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 000 and KRW 000,00,000 from Non-Party BB development on July 2, 2009, and on July 21, 2009, the Plaintiff paid KRW 00,000 and KRW 00,000,00,000,000 from Non-Party CCC (hereinafter referred to as “DDcom”), which was brought against the Board of Audit and Inspection.

B. On May 31, 2010, when the Plaintiff filed a return on the global income tax for the year 2009, the Plaintiff classified the amount equivalent to the above fees as business income and made a final return on the total amount of income at KRW 000, and made a final return on the tax base after deducting necessary expenses and income deduction, and paid KRW 000,000 as global income tax calculated accordingly.

C. Since July 28, 201, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant on July 28, 201, and the Defendant issued a disposition rejecting the claim on September 21, 201 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) on the following grounds: (a) the total amount of business income is KRW 000, and the total amount of other income is KRW 000, and the tax base is KRW 000, and the calculated tax amount is KRW 00,000; and (b) the Defendant issued a disposition rejecting the claim on September 21, 201 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

D. On November 18, 201, the Plaintiff appealed and sought revocation of the instant disposition from the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but the request for examination was dismissed on December 23, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, evidence 1, evidence 2, evidence 3, evidence 5, evidence 1, 2, and evidence 1, and evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the scope of ‘business income' should be based on the Korean Standard Industrial Classification, and ‘acting for appeal, etc. on taxes' is not ‘tax accountant business'(74111), but ‘business service business' (7412). Therefore, the amount received by a tax accountant by providing a substitute service on taxes like the plaintiff is ‘other income not ‘business income'.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Article 19(1)15 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same) provides that "other income generated from personal service business shall be defined as one type of business income, and Article 21(1) of the former Income Tax Act provides that "other income shall be defined as income from interest, dividend, real estate rental income, places of business, wage and salary income, retirement income, and income other than transfer income under each subparagraph of Multi-Eup". Article 19 of the former Income Tax Act provides that "cost for temporarily providing personal service falling under any of the following items" and subparagraph 19 of the same Article provides that "any other income is paid to a lawyer, certified public accountant, certified tax accountant, certified tax accountant, patent attorney, or other person with special knowledge or special skills by using the pertinent knowledge or function, and it shall be deemed that it constitutes "other income continuously defined in the above subparagraph 2 of Article 21(1) of the former Income Tax Act, and it shall be deemed that it falls under the name of the above type of income, and its length.

2) We examine the instant case, and the following circumstances that can be recognized by considering the circumstances leading to the instant disposition as a whole, and the purport of the entire argument, i.e., the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Nonparty Company for the revocation of the imposition of heavy registration tax by the Nonparty Company and provided each service in an independent position. (ii) The agent service, such as filing a complaint on taxes conducted by the Plaintiff, requires specialized knowledge as a tax accountant, and is under the Certified Tax Accountant Act.

Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act) and Article 29 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21934, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) provide that "Except as otherwise provided in this Decree, with respect to the scope of business under the provisions of each subparagraph of Article 19 of the Act, the fees in this case due to proxy for the appeal on taxes among the amount of income belonging to the plaintiff in 2009 shall occupy a considerable part, and the period required for the handling of the business, and the details of the business shall be non-party 1's business activities independent of social norms, and the non-party 1's business activities shall be regarded as "the necessary matters concerning the scope of business income" and the main sentence of Article 29 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21934, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be interpreted as "the Korea Standard Industrial Classification.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.