1. The Defendant’s KRW 59,768,941 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from November 25, 2017 to May 10, 2018.

1. On January 5, 2017, the Plaintiff was a juristic person established for the purpose of opening and selling public stores, and entered into a tax agent business contract with the Defendant who is a tax accountant on behalf of the Plaintiff, bookkeeping guidance, and tax adviser, and paid 150,000 won per month (excluding value-added tax) at its expense.

After establishing C Branch on April 17, 2017, the Plaintiff registered the business of the said C Branch on April 27, 2017.

Around that time, the Plaintiff’s accounting staff D asked the Defendant E, who is an employee of the Defendant, about the issuance of a tax invoice between the head office and the branch office, and D believed the Defendant’s above answer and did not issue a tax invoice for the goods of KRW 549,92,694 that were taken out from the head office to the branch office for sale from April to June 2017.

When filing the final return on the value-added tax in January 2017 by the Plaintiff, the Defendant filed a return on the value-added tax refund of KRW 58,211,38 with respect to the head office, and filed a return on the value-added tax refund of KRW 30,753,258 with respect to C branch offices without purchase tax invoices, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,753,258 with respect to C branch offices.

The Gangseo Tax Office imposed an additional tax of KRW 10,99,863 on the goods that the Plaintiff taken out from the head office to C without a tax invoice and KRW 16,49,789 on the aggregate of KRW 5,49,926 and the additional tax on negligent tax returns of KRW 16,49,789 on the goods that were taken out without a tax invoice. In the case of C branch office, the Plaintiff did not receive a purchase tax invoice from the head office and did not refund KRW 58,21,388 on the grounds that it did not receive a purchase

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the cause of the claim

A. According to the fact of recognition of the occurrence of liability for damages, the Defendant did not faithfully implement the tax guidance under the instant contract to the Plaintiff, thereby causing the Plaintiff’s damage (additional tax and unpaid additional tax).