logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2000. 6. 27. 선고 2000도1408 판결
[세무사법위반][공2000.8.15.(112),1808]
Main Issues

Whether a “other person stipulated in Article 12-3 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act” includes a person qualified as a certified tax accountant (affirmative)

Summary of Judgment

Article 12-3 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act provides that no certified tax accountant shall allow a "other person" to provide tax agent services using his name or trade name. "other person" includes not only those who are not qualified as a certified tax accountant but also those who are qualified as such.

[Reference Provisions]

Certified Tax Accountant Act Article 12-3

Defendant

Defendant

Appellant

Defendant

Defense Counsel

Law Firm Seo General Law Office, Attorney Park No-oon

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul District Court Decision 99No10200 delivered on March 23, 2000

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Article 12-3 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act provides that no certified tax accountant shall allow the "other person" to provide tax agent services using his name or trade name. The "other person" referred to in this provision includes not only a person who is not qualified as a certified tax accountant but also a person qualified as such. Therefore, it is proper that the court below found the defendant as a certified tax accountant guilty of the facts charged in this case that the defendant had the non-indicted person provide tax agent services in the name of the defendant while operating his office jointly with the non-indicted person, and there is no error of misunderstanding legal principles as argued in

2. Meanwhile, as pointed out in the grounds of appeal that the court below did not explicitly determine the defendant's legal error, the court below's rejection of its assertion is deemed to have been included in the grounds of appeal. In addition, even if the defendant believed that his act in this case was not a crime, it is difficult to view that there was a justifiable reason to believe that there was such a mistake in the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)

arrow