The judgment below

Among the parts against the Defendant, this part of the case is reversed and this part is remanded to the Panel Division of the District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The legal relationship between a certified tax accountant and a taxpayer who is entrusted with the duty of proxy for tax return is identical to that stipulated under the Civil Act. Therefore, a certified tax accountant shall manage the delegated affairs with the care of a good manager according to the principal place of delegation within the scope of specific delegated affairs determined by the terms of a delegation contract, and shall comply with such instruction given by the client.

However, as a tax specialist with public nature and has a mission to protect the rights and interests of taxpayers and to contribute to the faithful performance of tax liability, there is no separate delegation in special circumstances, such as where a tax accountant fails to submit data necessary for performing the duties requested by a client within the scope closely related to the duties requested, or where he/she fails to comply with the request even if the client’s specific instructions are given, it is inappropriate to the principal of the delegation, or disadvantageous to the client.

The client shall have the duty to explain and give advice to the client so that the client may take measures necessary to promote the benefit and prevent the damage.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da63968 Decided January 14, 2005 and Supreme Court Decision 2005Da38294 Decided October 7, 2005, etc.). 2. A.

According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the following facts are revealed.

1) C (Plaintiff’s wife) who represented the Plaintiff sold the instant farmland through D’s brokerage and completed the registration of ownership transfer thereof. D, on April 30, 2013, offered to the Plaintiff’s husband and wife a proposal to the tax accountant office of the Defendant’s operation to act as an agent for reporting capital gains tax, and obtained consent thereto. 2) D’s farmland ledger (it is written in the farmland status column as being self-fluence of the instant farmland from December 10, 202) received from the Plaintiff on May 24, 2013, and resident registration cards.