1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 201, the Plaintiff, a certified tax accountant, was in charge of tax bookkeeping and verification of faithful reporting for C engaged in the manufacturing of electronic parts under the trade name “B”.

B. On August 12, 2014 through October 18, 2012, the Central and Medium Regional Tax Office conducted a personal integration investigation with respect to C by setting three taxable periods from 2010 to 2012 as the investigation period, and confirmed that 757 million won of necessary expenses not equipped with evidence at the time of filing a global income tax return in 201 and 2012 were included in necessary expenses, and that 85 million won of global income tax was omitted.

C. On May 28, 2015, the Central Regional Tax Office requested the Chairperson of the Certified Tax Accountants Disciplinary Committee to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the following grounds (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

C’s inclusion of necessary expenses, such as payment fees, in the book when filing a return on global income tax for the year 2011 and 2012, C claimed payment of remittance statements and personnel expenses presented by C in cash and claimed them to be related to the business, and thus, C’s reliance on eligibility verification and processing expenses without any disbursement evidence, made C’s false entry in the book to evade comprehensive income tax, and breached Article 12 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act by failing to perform the general duty of care required for the certified tax accountant by falsely verifying the certificate of bona fide return.

On June 23, 2015, the Defendant, following a resolution of the Certified Tax Accountants Disciplinary Committee, rendered a disciplinary action of one year of suspension from office and five million won of a fine for negligence (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on July 2, 2015, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed it on January 5, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3, 5, and 6 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The instant disposition is lawful.