Plaintiff (Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Regional Tax Office

November 2, 2011

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap43662 Decided April 21, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition to return the tax accountant's application to the plaintiff on October 22, 2010 shall be revoked.

The reasoning of this court’s judgment is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except where “Article 2(2) of the Addenda to this case” is deemed to be “Article 2(2) of the Addenda to this case,” and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiff asserts that the court may conduct tax agent services as a lawyer prescribed in Article 3 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act pursuant to the proviso of Article 20 (1) of the Certified Tax Accountant Act. Thus, the plaintiff's application for registration as a lawyer cannot be refused based on Article 6 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act.

Article 20(1) proviso of the Certified Tax Accountant Act provides that a tax agent may act as a lawyer pursuant to Article 3 of the Attorney-at-Law Act without being registered in the Certified Tax Accountant Register. The provision provides that a tax agent may act as a lawyer without being registered in the Certified Tax Accountant Register. At that time, the said provision provides that a real agent service among the tax agent services may be registered in the Certified Tax Accountant Register: Provided, That where a lawyer acts as a legal agent other than a real agent, the provision was newly established to exempt a lawyer from liability for registration in view of performing his/her own duties as a lawyer. Therefore, the proviso to Article 20(1) of the Certified Tax Accountant Act is reasonable to interpret that a lawyer may act as a legal agent without being registered in accordance with the Certified Tax Accountant Act. Other purport of the provision is without merit (or, even in cases where the Plaintiff appears otherwise, it does not constitute a lawyer prescribed in Article 2(1) of the Addenda of this case or an attorney-at-law or a tax accountant registration register prescribed in Article 6 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act.

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Justices Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)