1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion A (around March 23, 2018, when the lawsuit is pending, the Plaintiffs’ taking over the lawsuit) was the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) that was the representative director. The F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) was a company operating equipment leasing business. From October 7, 2009, the tax accountant delegated the tax accounting business to the Defendant, a tax accountant.

However, the defendant was notified of the submission of tax data due to omission in filing a return in Daejeon Tax Office by omitting the value-added tax return in 201, and the defendant received 7 million won from the deceased A while resolving this.

However, the defendant did not resolve the omission of the above value-added tax at all, and the network A paid the omitted portion of the value-added tax and the additional tax, and the F was closed ex officio.

This is a loss caused by the defendant's occupational negligence, and thus, the defendant is entitled to pay the value-added tax omitted in 2011, the additional tax in arrears, and the damages for delay.

2. In full view of all the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge any negligence or illegality in the process of tax treatment to the defendant, such as the above plaintiffs' assertion, and there is no other sufficient evidence to acknowledge it.

First of all, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant has received 7 million won illegally while resolving the problem of omission of value-added tax.

In addition, the core part of the plaintiffs' assertion is that even if F loses sales tax invoices and fails to provide them to the defendant, the defendant, who is a tax accountant, is obligated to report the details of transactions corresponding to the F Corporation's account (Evidence A2) which are omitted after thoroughly verifying the details of the deposit and withdrawal from the F Corporation's account. However, it is difficult to deem that the defendant has such obligation to report to the defendant, and the sales omitted even after confirming the corporate account provided by F at the time.