1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of a certified tax accountant from January 7, 2010, and operates the “C Tax Accounting Office” in Seo-gu, Busan.

B. On July 2013, the director of Busan Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on D’s representative E who entered the account book and prepared a certificate of bona fide return, and found that E, when filing a global income tax return for the tax year 201, spent 488,587,875 won for expenses without verification of eligibility, and included 329,000,000 won for expenses outside the country for which E failed to report, and 16,000,000 won for revenue, respectively, and subsequently corrected the amount of 62,00,000 won for global income for the year 201.

C. On August 26, 2013, the Commissioner of the Busan Regional Tax Office requested disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff entered account books of global income tax for the year 201, the Plaintiff entered the account books of global income tax for KRW 465,00,00 and KRW 23,587,00,000, which did not have any evidence of eligibility for expenditure, into the necessary expenses, thereby making false entries of account books and making false entries of account books, and received false evidence of eligibility in the certificate of bona fide return.

On December 23, 2013, the Certified Tax Accountants Disciplinary Committee decided to take disciplinary measures of KRW 1 year of suspension from office (from February 1, 2014 to January 31, 2015) and KRW 5 million against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 17 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act on the ground that the Plaintiff falsely verified the false bookkeeping and the certificate of bona fide return when filing a report on bookkeeping of E’s books and violated his/her duty of loyalty provided for in Article 12 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act. On December 26, 2013, the Defendant was subject to the same disciplinary measures as the above result against the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition of suspension of performing duties” shall be deemed to be “the instant disposition of suspension of duties.”

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on June 17, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 (including branch numbers, if any), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The case.