1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On July 20, 2012, the Defendant’s rejection disposition against the registration of certified tax accountants against the Plaintiff is revoked.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is an attorney-at-law who passed the 45th judicial examination on December 24, 2003 and served as an attorney-at-law from April 1, 2012, and from April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff is an affiliated attorney-at-law of a law firm as a member of a senior law firm.

The Plaintiff obtained a certified tax accountant’s license from the Minister of Strategy and Finance on May 15, 2012, and filed an application for registration of a certified tax accountant with the Defendant on June 26, 2012.

On July 20, 2012, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s above application on the ground that “the registration of a certified tax accountant is not possible under Articles 6(3) and 16(2) of the Certified Tax Accountant Act.”

(hereinafter the plaintiff's refusal disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons, for the following reasons, whether the plaintiff's refusal disposition of this case is legitimate for the following facts: (a) there is no dispute about the issue of "the ground for recognition"; (b) Gap's 1 through 4, and 12; and (c) Eul's 1.

The purpose of Article 16 (2) of the Certified Tax Accountant Act is to ensure that the existence of a reason for disposition does not interfere with the fair performance of certified tax accountants' services and the integrity of their services by concurrently holding office for other business for profit-making purposes.

However, according to Article 49 (2) of the Attorney-at-Law Act and Article 49 (2) of the same Act, when an affiliated attorney of a law firm is able to perform his/her duties with the qualification of a certified tax accountant, it is difficult to see that the case where an affiliated attorney of a law firm performs his/her duties without the qualification of a certified tax accountant is likely to impede fair performance of his/her duties, etc. compared to the case of an individual attorney-at-law, and Article 13 (2) of the Certified Tax Accountant Act assumes that it is possible to concurrently perform the duties of a certified tax accountant

Therefore, the rejection disposition of this case is purport of Article 16 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act and Article 49 of the Attorney-at-Law Act.