1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The court's explanation of this case is as follows: ① "A judgment was rendered on the charge of a crime" in Article 1-b of the Reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance; ② "Evidence A through 24, 25, 27" in Article 4 of the Civil Procedure Act is deemed as "Evidence A, 24, 27" in Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and ③ except for the addition of the following additional judgment, it is identical to the statement of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendant asserts that the defendant's tort (the plaintiff's employee violates the Certified Tax Accountant Act as the employee of the plaintiff, insults the plaintiff, and arbitrarily registers the dismissal of the customer who the plaintiff accepted without the plaintiff's approval, and damages the plaintiff's credit by causing negative words to the plaintiff's customer, and closing or inducing the termination of the transaction, etc.), the defendant asserts that the plaintiff was negligent by failing to frequently replace the defendant's employees, replace the employees, faithfully replace the employees, and failing to faithfully perform the duty of tax service, and by failing to faithfully perform the duty of tax service, the plaintiff's negligence contributed to about 70% of the plaintiff's damages, and that the plaintiff's negligence contributed to approximately

However, the Plaintiff committed acts as alleged by the Defendant.

Even if it is difficult to evaluate the damage of this case as negligence with causation, and the defendant's assertion of comparative negligence in this case seeking compensation for damages on the ground of intentional tort is not permissible in itself against the ideology of fairness or the principle of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da70316, Nov. 13, 2014). Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable.