1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of some of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this case is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A tax accounting office shall be operated in the front of the “certified Tax Accountants Business” in the second line.

5 The parts of “(b) and (c)” are modified as follows:

B) In full view of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the evidence as seen earlier, evidence No. 10, evidence No. 15, and evidence No. 16 (including various numbers), and the overall purport of the pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff’s return is highly probable to prove that there were omissions or errors in excessive appropriation, such as omission of income amount, appropriation by a park, and personnel expenses.

① The Plaintiff reported global income tax and value-added tax every year and every half year.

At this time, the Plaintiff submitted standard financial statements, payment records of labor, business and other income, sales tax invoices, etc. in addition to the report.

② The Defendant: (a) compared the list of total tax invoices by customer submitted by the Plaintiff and the details of the Plaintiff’s acting as an acting reporting agent among the list of total tax invoices by customer and the list of total income tax and corporate tax retained by the Defendant from 2011 to 2014; (b) confirmed that the Plaintiff was not issued the Plaintiff’s acting as an acting reporting agent; (c) in such a case, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff omitted the amount of income equivalent to the commission for acting reporting even though the Plaintiff

In this regard, the plaintiff made a free declaration agency, which was known to the defendant as a practice of the industry, and the ratio is not excessive, but the plaintiff also argued that the ratio is not excessive.