beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 19, 2016 to January 10, 2018, and the following.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a certified tax accountant operating the A Tax Accounting Corporation Office (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s office”) since 2012, and the Defendant, while having no career of tax accounting, was employed by the Plaintiff’s office as the introduction of the Plaintiff’s wife (C) on July 1, 2014 and retired on September 16, 2015.
(C) fact that there is no dispute;
The defendant was indicted with suspicions as follows, who are related persons or victims, and was convicted on November 15, 2017.
(A) From May 14, 2015 to July 23, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a tax agent service contract with the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate and provided tax agent services without qualification as a tax accountant. (2) From June 2015 to July 2015, 2015, “D” restaurant business owner refers to the Plaintiff, who is a mentally disabled person, in nature, and is an abnormal certified tax accountant office.” (3) On September 2015, 2015, the Plaintiff provided “E” business owner with the phrase “the Plaintiff is the same person as the associate professor.”
3) Around September 15, 2015, violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Violation of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc., retired at the Plaintiff’s office, and thereafter thereafter, the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate was not granted the right to accept or dismiss the Plaintiff’s business entity, but the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate was connected to the Plaintiff’s home home office website using the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate during the period from September 23, 2015 to October 15, 2015, and infringed upon the information and communications network without due authority by arbitrarily registering five times of the Plaintiff’
C. On the other hand, at the Plaintiff’s office, more than 10 companies at the time of the Defendant’s service and bookkeepings under the tax bookkeeping agency contract.