(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.9.19. 선고 2018구합601 판결

On April 27, 2018, the defendant revoked the disposition of suspension of duty for one year and 6 million won of a fine for negligence imposed on the plaintiff on April 27, 2018.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who has completed the registration of a certified tax accountant on August 1, 2006 and operates a certified tax accountant office in the Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City B building C.

B. The Plaintiff was in charge of the filing of reports on global income tax and the preparation of certificates of bona fide return for each global income tax for the year 2014 and the year 2015 by the F Hospital, a general hospital operated jointly by both E and 11 doctors (hereinafter “F Hospital”).

C. The director of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office, from April 28, 2017 to May 25, 2017, conducted an integrated investigation into the F Hospital (E and 11 other) on global income tax for 2012 to 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “tax investigation of this case”), found that the Plaintiff falsely verified the customer management fee of KRW 110 million without evidentiary evidence when filing a global income tax return for 2014 name E and 11,00,000,000 won for global income tax for 2015, and included the amount of KRW 400,000,000,000 without evidentiary evidence by neglecting the verification of the global income tax return for 2015, and requested the Chairperson of the Tax Accountants Disciplinary Committee to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff as follows.

3. The request for disciplinary action against a certified tax accountant: (a) violates Article 12 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act / [Duty of Good Faith] - Upon filing a return on global income tax for the year 15; (b) falsely ascertaining 5.1 million won by appropriating unprocessed processing expenses (customer management expenses); (c) - 1.2 million won of global income tax for the year 15; and (d) 5. Review of the requirements for disciplinary action against a certified tax accountant; (b) 14 years of suspension of duties and fines for negligence - 6 million won of global income tax for the year 15 and 11, other than the hospital E, for the year 11, and 5.1 million won of global income tax; (c) 1.5 million won of global income tax for the verification of the amount of the request for disciplinary action against a certified tax accountant under Article 2(1)5 of the Certified Tax Accountant Disciplinary Regulations ; (d) 1.5 million won of global income tax for the year 15.

D. On April 27, 2018, the Certified Tax Accountants Disciplinary Committee passed a resolution on disciplinary action of KRW 1 year of suspension from office (from June 1, 2018 to May 31, 2019) and fine for negligence of KRW 6 million on the ground that “the Plaintiff shall include customer management expenses, etc. without evidentiary documents, etc. in the course of performing his/her duties, and prepare a false certificate of good faith under the Income Tax Act, and breached the duty of good faith under Article 12 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act.”

E. On May 4, 2018, the Defendant took the same disciplinary measure as the above result against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. The Ministry of Strategy and Finance’s provision on disciplinary action against certified tax accountants disciplinary committee relating to the instant case is as follows:

Article 2 (Standards for Suspension of Duties) (1) A person who violates the duties of certified tax accountants under Article 2 of the Act and the duty of good faith under Article 12 of the Act shall be determined as follows: Provided, That in the application of the provisions of subparagraph 3, where the amount of tax evasion for the relevant year is less than the amount equivalent to 5/100 of the amount of tax to be paid, or where there is no damage to any third party as a simple account error, it shall not apply;

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3, 5, 6, Eul 1-3, 9, the purport of the whole argument

A. Absence of disciplinary reasons

For the following reasons, the instant disciplinary cause, namely, the Plaintiff’s fraudulent bookkeeping and the Plaintiff’s breach of good faith due to false verification of good faith is not recognized.

1) The accounting officer affiliated with the F Hospital voluntarily performed the bookkeeping's duties in 2014 and 2015 when the F Hospital did not take part in the captain's account. The Plaintiff was in charge of the tax adjustment of the F Hospital and the verification of bona fide return, and did not take part in the captain's duties.

2) The Plaintiff’s determination that the expenditure of the customer management expenses of the F Hospital was based on the global income tax reporting that was included in the necessary expenses does not constitute a “false report” verification.

A) The F Hospital kept the payment place, payment amount, internal director responsible for the payment, and payment date in the form of “detailed statement” prepared in the course of paying customer management expenses. The Gwangju Regional Tax Office also submitted it to the Gwangju Regional Tax Office. Nevertheless, without properly verifying the authenticity thereof, the Gwangju Regional Tax Office assessed the total amount of customer management expenses as processing expenses by deeming that there is no evidence of disbursement itself. This was the premise for the instant disposition.

B) Although the above customer management expenses should be assessed as advertising expenses, it is unlawful for Gwangju regional tax office to estimate them as entertainment expenses.

C) The F Hospital actually disbursed customer management expenses under the name of advertisement expenses. The other party is an unspecified number of individuals, not a business operator, who is not a business operator, and is unable to issue eligibility documents, such as tax invoices or receipts. Therefore, even if the F Hospital does not keep evidence of the above disbursement, it cannot be deemed as a violation of the duty to keep evidence under Article 160-2 of the Income Tax Act

D) Even if there is no evidence regarding the disbursement of customer management expenses, the Defendant’s determination that the F Hospital actually performed such an expenditure is erroneous in determining that the said expenses should not be included in the necessary expenses on the ground that there is no mere evidence.

3) Even though the interpretation of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office that deemed expenses for customer management as entertainment expenses is reasonable due to the difference in statutory interpretation, this is merely a difference in interpretation between the Plaintiff and the Gwangju Regional Tax Office. In other words, insofar as the Plaintiff, a certified tax accountant who did not have the right of inquiry in the process of verifying the bona fide return, determined expenses for customer management as advertising expenses and prepared a certificate of bona fide return by deeming that the expenses for customer management were recorded with the statement of expenditure, it cannot

4) Regarding the preparation of a review report on the certificate of bona fide return

In preparing a written confirmation of faithful reporting, the Defendant recorded the item in the column of verification of eligibility in the column of verification of the customer management expenses if the customer management expenses are not subject to verification of eligibility but subject to verification of eligibility. However, the Defendant’s entry in the column of verification of eligibility in the column of exclusion of verification of eligibility in itself constitutes a false verification of bona fide reporting. However, in light of the following: (a) the reason why the customer management expenses to be stated in the column of exclusion of verification of eligibility is not satisfied; (b) the customer management expenses are not subject to taxation requirements for the F Hospital; (c) the customer management expenses are not subject to verification of eligibility under tax law; (d) there is no provision prohibiting the disbursement of advertising expenses; and (e) there is no provision prohibiting the disbursement of advertising expenses; and (e) there is no provision that there is no special provision that the advertisement expenses are equipped with identification of the F Hospital’s global income tax amount of KRW 150 million,200,000,000.

(b) deviation from and abuse of discretionary authority;

1) Even if there were grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, the instant disposition is too heavy compared to the degree of the Plaintiff’s breach of duty, considering the following circumstances as well as the fact that the Plaintiff faithfully worked and received orders and commendation at the time of his/her service in the national tax name, and that there was no record of disciplinary action.

2) The Plaintiff’s act of false verification of the bona fide return in 2014 and 2015 ought to be deemed separately established each year. Each of the above acts constitutes a case where the amount of false verification is at least KRW 100 million but less than KRW 500 million, respectively. Therefore, even though the Defendant should have been subject to the criteria for the provision of disciplinary punishment on the return of global income tax in 2014 and 2015, the Defendant took an excessive disciplinary action on the premise that the total amount of false verification of each bona fide return on global income tax in 2014 and 2015 constitutes a violation of duties exceeding KRW 500,000.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 1 is as shown in attached Table 1.

4. Whether the disposition of this case is unlawful

A. Whether grounds for disciplinary action exist

1) According to the Certified Tax Accountant Act, a certified tax accountant’s mission is to contribute to protecting taxpayers’ rights and interests as a tax specialist with public nature and having taxpayers faithfully fulfill his/her tax liability (Article 1-2); a person entrusted by taxpayers, etc. to perform his/her duties, such as preparing books for filing returns on taxes; and “verification of bona fide return under the Income-Related Act” (Article 2 Subparag. 3 and 8); and a person performing his/her duties in good faith to maintain dignity; and he/she shall not intentionally conceal or make false statements (Article 12). Under the Income Tax Act, a business operator shall record and manage books by double entry in accordance with double entry so that all transactions related to his/her business can be objectively identified (Article 160(1)); and where a person with business income is supplied goods or services from a business operator with respect to his/her business and expends the prices thereof, he/she shall obtain prescribed evidentiary documents, except for exceptions prescribed by Presidential Decree (Article 160-2(2)).

Meanwhile, Article 70-2(1) of the Income Tax Act provides for a system of verifying bona fide return by requiring a tax accountant, etc. to submit to the head of a tax office a confirmation document that is prepared by him/her, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, the appropriateness of business income calculated based on the books and evidentiary documents kept in accordance with Articles 160 and 161, when filing a final return based on the global income tax table. Such a system is introduced to prevent a bona fide return and supplement the limit of the administrative ability of tax investigation by inducing a personal entrepreneur beyond a certain size to verify the appropriateness of accounting and tax treatment before filing a return on his/her income tax before

In full view of the aforementioned provisions and purport of the Certified Tax Accountant Act, the Income Tax Act, and the same, a tax accountant performing duties delegated by taxpayers, etc. is obligated to provide appropriate advice to taxpayers as a tax specialist, not merely performing duties as required by taxpayers, but as independent from taxpayers, and to enable taxpayers to faithfully perform their duties to pay taxes by refusing to comply with the relevant statutes. Therefore, if a tax accountant prepares a book for filing a tax return as required by a taxpayer without taking appropriate measures as a tax specialist even though the details requested by a taxpayer are suspected of being appropriate in light of the relevant statutes, and prepares a certificate of faithful return in accordance with the prepared book, it is reasonable to deem that the certified tax accountant violates the duty of good faith as stipulated in Article 12 of the Certifie

2) In addition to the overall purport of the pleadings in Articles A4, 6, 8-1 to 8-6, B, 3, 6, and 7, the following facts are revealed.

① From January 2014 to December 2015, F Hospital paid to the Plaintiff KRW 1 million each month, and the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice on the 15th day of each month that the Plaintiff received the above KRW 1 million in the F Hospital as the captain’s fee.

② The disbursement details of customer management expenses included in the necessary expenses at the time when the F Hospital reported global income tax for the year 2015 are as shown in attached Table 2. F Hospital submitted a list, as evidentiary data on this, each of which is classified into customer management expenses (i.e., the funeral survey expenses of the head of the kindergarten; 2. the funeral survey expenses of the patient who was the head of the kindergarten; 3. the elderly association around the hospital; 4. 2015 contract management expenses of the elderly association around the hospital; 5. 2015 contract comprehensive examination expenses; 6. 2015 G organization condolence expenses; and the payment details of hospital consolation money) and the other party to the payment and the number of payments, etc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the disbursement statement of this case”); and no objective data such as receipts verifying the specific disbursement are attached.

③ On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff entered the F Hospital’s certificate of faithful reporting for the year 2014 as F Hospital’s 2014, as a result of the verification of good faith: (a) as a result of the verification of good faith, the Plaintiff: (a) as a result of the verification of whether to receive verification of eligibility for necessary expenses; (b) as a result of the verification of good faith, 4.51 on the specifications of the main category; (c) as an amount of KRW 40,51,00 (excluding the obligation to receive verification of eligibility: 30,000 won per case; 3,923,00 won per case; and (d) as an amount of KRW 36,436,336,00 per case; and (e) as a result of the verification of good faith, the Plaintiff stated that the particulars of the technical document do not include any special particulars on the whole items of eligibility verification expenses; and (e) as a result of the verification of good faith, the Plaintiff’s comprehensive statement that they correspond to necessary documents.

④ On June 29, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) as a result of the verification of the F Hospital’s faithful reporting for the year 2015, indicated the following as follows: (b) on the specifications of the main category, the review of whether to receive eligibility evidence for necessary expenses; (a) on the standard income statement items, 33,143,00 won per advertising expenses (5,000 won or less per case excluded from eligibility evidence receipt; 28,756,00 won); (c) on the basis of the verification of the faithful reporting, the Plaintiff stated that “the senior citizen was not subject to verification of eligibility evidence; and (d) on the other hand, 3,143,00 won per advertisement and machine; and (e) on the other hand, 40,000 won per case, the Plaintiff did not clearly indicate that “the senior citizen was not subject to verification of eligibility evidence; and (e) on the other hand, 30,000 won of the hospital’s entertainment expenses.”

6. In the course of the instant tax investigation, the Gwangju Regional Tax Office confirmed that there was no fact that the Elderly's Association and Women's Association were not organized or that there was no support fund from the F Hospital during each quarter of the year as a result of questioning to some apartment management offices of apartments among the details presented in the instant expenditure statement.

3) In light of the following circumstances revealed through the aforementioned facts and evidence revealed, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff neglected to perform the duty of care required for the tax accountant in performing the duties of preparing books for reporting global income tax on the Fa Hospital, and instead wrongfully recorded expenses irrelevant to his duties, and prepares a certificate of bona fide return based on the details of poor entry. The Plaintiff’s act constitutes a case where the Plaintiff breached the duty of care provided for in Article 12 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is rejected.

① Since the details of the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff to F Hospital from January 2, 2014 to December 2, 2015, the Plaintiff handled the captain’s business of F Hospital for the said period, and it can be recognized that the Plaintiff received the payment for the said fee from F Hospital.

In the case of a large hospital, such as the F Hospital, the Plaintiff asserts that, as a practice, the relevant person of the hospital deals with the basic bookkeeping affairs on his own, and that the actual name of 1 million won that the F Hospital received every month from the F Hospital is erroneous in the process of issuing the tax invoice, even though he was an advisory fee for tax advice. As seen earlier, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s argument is consistent with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s 7, 11-1, and 13-1 is difficult to believe that it is contrary to objective details on the tax invoice issued by the F Hospital. Furthermore, according to the F Hospital’s 11-2, the Plaintiff concluded a tax consultation agreement with the F Hospital to receive KRW 1,00,000 per month in return for providing tax advice with the F Hospital around 207, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s 2014 through 2015 did not perform the tax adjustment agreement with the F Hospital’s agent for the reason that it could not be objectively verified that the Plaintiff’s gross income manager’s tax adjustment cannot be included in the tax adjustment.

② The Plaintiff asserts that the disbursement statement of this case was an objective documentary evidence of the cost of customer management spent by the F Hospital in 2015. However, the disbursement statement of this case is limited to the subject of payment, the payer, the amount paid, and the amount paid, without any objective documentary evidence attached, and it is difficult to deem that the disbursement statement of this case constitutes an objective certificate of income under Article 160 of the Income Tax Act because there is no financial transaction details. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the expense statement of this case does not constitute an objective certificate of income under Article 160 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the expense of customer management in this case was actually paid for the purpose of advertisement. In the course of the tax investigation of this case, it is acceptable to conclude that the expense statement of this case alone is not proven that some of the elderly association around the hospital, the Women’s Association of the Aged, and the Women’s Association were not organized, and that in the case of ordinary investigation expenses, a certain amount of money was paid every page of each ledger.

(3) Article 12 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act provides that a certified tax accountant shall enjoy the benefit of expanding the scope of his/her business to be handled with the authority delegated by a tax accountant by compelling a business operator above a certain scale to verify the propriety of the acquisition amount of a business place. Article 20 Subparag. 7 of the Tax Accountant Act provides that a certified tax accountant shall faithfully perform his/her duties and maintain his/her dignity. Article 20 Subparag. 7 of the Regulations on Services of Tax Agents also provides for reasons for breach of good faith under Article 12 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff, a certified tax accountant, has the duty to accurately verify books and evidentiary documents and to verify whether the reported business income is appropriate. Since the Plaintiff, a certified tax accountant, who is a certified tax accountant, has the duty to accurately verify whether each item of the income tax appropriated as necessary expenses is equipped with qualified evidence, it is reasonable to view that there is no doubt that a taxpayer provided details differently from the actual transaction, and that there is no reason to view that the Plaintiff’s tax agent’s failure to perform his/her duty of bona fide reporting constitutes an unlawful tax payment of expenses.

④ On the premise that the Defendant determined customer management expenses as entertainment expenses, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s determination on whether it can be deemed as entertainment expenses, not entertainment expenses, and if so, the Plaintiff’s determination on which degree of evidence is needed is merely different from the opinion on the interpretation of statutes, and thus, it cannot be discussed as to whether it has violated the duty of good faith. However, the amount of KRW 510 million for customer management expenses, which the Fa hospital spent from 2014 to 2015, is found as processing expenses because there is no document proving actual expenses, and thus, the Defendant stated it as the amount that the Defendant issued the instant disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act was deemed as a bona fide violation of the duty of return on global income tax reflecting it, and that the customer management expenses should not be deemed as entertainment expenses, not entertainment expenses. Moreover, even if it is considered as advertising expenses, the Plaintiff’s submission of evidentiary

As seen earlier, the judgment seems to be clearly unreasonable beyond a simple difference of opinion. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part.

⑤ As seen earlier, it is apparent that in the case of customer management expenses, it cannot be recognized as necessary expenses because there is no evidentiary document. As such, the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, should not enter it in the column for the obligation to receive verification of eligibility, when preparing a review report, such as whether to receive verification of eligibility for necessary expenses, out of the certificate of bona fide return. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff entered it in the column for the obligation to receive verification of eligibility, and entered

Considering that the Plaintiff is in the position of a tax specialist, it is difficult to see it as a result of simple mistake, and even if it is based on mistake, it is reasonable to see that it constitutes a mistake or a false confirmation.

B. Whether the discretionary authority is deviates or abused

1) In a case where a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to a disciplinary measure who is a certified tax accountant at the discretion of the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure, the disciplinary measure is unlawful only when the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure, as a matter of social norms, has considerably lost validity. Whether a disciplinary measure against a certified tax accountant has manifestly lost validity under social norms, depending on a specific case, the contents and nature of his/her duties, the purpose of achieving the disciplinary measure through the disciplinary measure, the criteria for a disciplinary measure, etc. In addition, the disciplinary measure may be deemed objectively unreasonable, barring special circumstances, such as where the person having the authority to take the disciplinary measure determines the criteria for internal disciplinary measure and accordingly the criteria for a disciplinary measure are unreasonable under social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Du13767, Nov. 10, 201; 201Du727, Apr. 27, 2017).

2) Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged and the following circumstances revealed through each of the aforementioned evidence, even if all favorable circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff were to be considered, it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition was clearly unreasonable and considerably unreasonable under the social norms.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

(1) The mission of a certified tax accountant is to contribute to protecting the rights and interests of taxpayers as a tax specialist of public nature and having them faithfully fulfill his/her duty to pay taxes, and the plaintiff requires high-quality services in order to achieve such public interest.

② The main text of Article 2(1) of the Disciplinary Punishment Regulation for Certified Tax Accountants (hereinafter referred to as the "Disciplinary Punishment Regulation") provides that "where the duties of a certified tax accountant under Article 2 of the Act and a person who violates the duty of good faith under Article 12 of the Act are determined according to the following subparagraphs, "in the case of "in the case of "weapons", "in the case of weapons", "in the case of "in the case of weapons", "in the case of not less than 50 million won (in the case of less than 300 million won)", "in the case of "in the case of suspension of duties, not less than 50 million won, but not more than 10 million won, or not more than 50 million won", "in the case of a false confirmation, not more than 50 million won" (excluding special matters from the amount of false confirmation), "in the case of a false confirmation amount, 1.0 years to 2 years of suspension from duties". Meanwhile, Article 6 subparagraph 4 of the Criteria for disciplinary action provides that the suspension of duties shall be concurrently applied.

The Plaintiff asserts that the “amount of false confirmation”, which constitutes a criteria for disposition of a bona fide return among the regulations on disciplinary action, should be separately calculated and reflected as criteria for determination on each year on the premise that the act of violating several obligations by each business year, which is a taxable unit of global income tax, is established. However, the number of crimes committed by tax evasion is based on the recovery of fulfillment of the elements of violation, and one crime is established for each taxable year (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do382, Apr. 20, 200; 9Do3822, Apr. 20, etc.). However, it is difficult to view that the criteria for determination on the number of crimes as above are applied as it is to the verification of a bona fide return or the interpretation of the criteria for disciplinary action on such false verification, and where a disciplinary action regulation provides for disciplinary action, no grounds for interpreting that the Plaintiff’s act of violating duties based on a bona fide return or false verification is established for each business year, and that the Plaintiff’s act of violating duties should be determined as a more reasonable standard for each business year.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s global income tax of the F Hospital in 2015, which was omitted due to the Plaintiff’s bad faith, was the cause of KRW 152 million, and the Plaintiff’s total amount of false verification based on the F Hospital’s confirmation certificate related to global income tax of the F Hospital prepared in 2014 and 2015, was the cause of KRW 510 million. The Defendant issued each disposition of suspension of duties within the scope of disposition standards stipulated in Article 2(1)3(b) of the Regulation on Disciplinary Action for the Plaintiff’s bad faith, which is within the scope of disposition standards stipulated in Article 2(1)5(a) of the Regulation on Disciplinary Action, and one-year period of suspension of duties, which is within the scope of disposition standards stipulated in Article 2(1)5(a) of the Regulation on Disciplinary Action. The instant disposition is consistent with the disposition standards stipulated in the Regulations on Disciplinary Action (i.e., the maximum annual suspension of duties, even if the amount of false verification is separately calculated according to the Plaintiff’s assertion).

③ Article 3(1) of the Regulations on Disciplinary Measures provides that “where a person has a career of commendation to duties, etc. on the grounds for the mitigation of disciplinary action” (Article 3(1)1), and where it is objectively recognized that the case is insignificant, unavoidable, and intentional (Article 3(2)2). According to Article 15, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff has received orders and prizes once and three times at the time of his/her employment as a public official belonging to the Gwangju Regional Tax Office. However, all of them are deemed to have received orders from a tax official in his/her position as a tax accountant and do not constitute a commendation received while engaging in tax affairs as a tax accountant, and in light of the aforementioned various circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the instant disciplinary reason is minor, inevitable, or

④ The Plaintiff asserts that: (a) the submission of the instant certificate of bona fide return to the F Hospital in 2014 and 2015 on the certificate of bona fide return, which was written as if there was evidence on eligibility for customer management expenses, is merely a simple mistake; (b) the Plaintiff’s certificate of bona fide return, which was written as if there were sufficient evidence on the customer management expenses; (c) however, (d) the Plaintiff’s experience is relatively short; (d) the customer management expenses, which were written differently from the Plaintiff’s certificate of bona fide return, are up to KRW 510 million; (e) the Plaintiff, a certified tax accountant, who was a certified tax accountant, submitted the instant certificate of bona fide return to the effect that the Plaintiff faithfully verified the adequacy of the business income calculated according to the F Hospital’s account books and evidentiary documents (=total amount of income - necessary expenses); and (e) the details of customer management expenses received from the F Hospital, which did not fall under the case where the said amount was written differently from the fact that the certificate of bona fide return was written.

6) As seen earlier, the bona fide return verification system under Article 70-2 of the Income Tax Act was introduced in order to enable a personal entrepreneur larger than a certain size to verify the appropriateness of accounting and tax processing from a tax specialist before filing a global income tax return and to supplement the limit of the administrative capacity for tax investigation to prevent a false report and to supplement the administrative capacity of tax investigation. If the instant disbursement statement, etc. submitted by the F Hospital do not constitute objective evidentiary documents, the Plaintiff, whose duties are the proxy to prepare books for global income tax return and to verify the bona fide return under the Income Tax Act, did not constitute objective evidentiary documents, should have refused to verify the return of global income tax and the bona fide return. However, the processing expenses equivalent to KRW 510,000,000 were appropriated as necessary expenses at the request of the F Hospital, and then prepared a false certificate of bona fide return. Such misconduct is contrary to the purport of the global income tax return system, and thus, cannot be easily determined.

(6) The public interest, which is to establish a tax accountant system in order to promote a smooth tax administration and a proper implementation of tax liability, to be achieved through the instant disposition, is not smaller than the disadvantage that the Plaintiff may incur due to the instant disposition.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.