1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

Since 2010, the Plaintiff, a certified tax accountant, operates Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Tax Office B (hereinafter referred to as the “Tax Office of this case”).

Since 2011, the Plaintiff has been performing the duty of tax keeping and reporting agency for global income tax reporting by artist D (mutual name: E and F).

On November 14, 2014, the Seoul Regional Tax Office requested disciplinary action against the plaintiff on the ground that "the plaintiff appropriated processing expenses without evidence D by the taxpayer for the year 2013 and confirmed the amount of global income of 704,649,000 won (tax amount of 268,336,000 won)".

On January 22, 2016, the Certified Tax Accountant Disciplinary Committee imposed a disciplinary measure on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 17 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act for violating the duty of good faith under Article 12 of the same Act by appropriating KRW 704,649,00 for processing expenses at D’s global income tax return return for the year 2013, and 268,336,000 for false verification as to the bona fide return under the Income Tax Act. On January 28, 2016, the Defendant decided to take a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on the ground that he/she violated the duty of good faith under Article 12 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act. The Defendant imposed a disciplinary measure on the Plaintiff for suspension of duties for the Plaintiff on January 28, 2016 (from March 1, 2016 to February 28, 2017) and 7,50,000

The disposition of this case is referred to as the "disposition of this case"

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition based on the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition; (b) the evidence Nos. 1, 1, and 7; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings; and (c) the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition. However, the aforementioned false verification was requested by the employees G of the tax office of this case to set excessive expenses from D’s mother-child around June 2014; and (c) the Plaintiff, who did not know the above facts due to the operation of the bridge and rehabilitation treatment, did not have the intent of false verification; and thus, the grounds for the instant disposition are not recognized