1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As a result of tax investigation conducted between June 30, 2014 and July 31, 2014 with respect to B (business entity: C) and D (business entity: E), the director of the Central Regional Tax Office confirmed that the processing expenses as listed below were appropriated and omitted at the time of the global income tax return for the year 2011 to 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant First Report”; B’s global income tax return for the 201 year-201 for the global income tax return for the 2012 year-201; and D’s global income tax return for the 2013 year-2013. C E

B. On May 11, 2015, the Defendant: (a) as a certified tax accountant, included each global income tax entry and relevant evidence at the time of filing a return on behalf of the Plaintiff; (b) deemed that the Plaintiff breached good faith under Article 12 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act by failing to perform its duty under Article 17 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act; and (c) applied Article 17 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act, the period of suspension of duties for two years (from June 15, 2015 to June 14, 2017).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). [Grounds for recognition] / 【No dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. To make entries in attached Form 1 of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff performed the plane captain’s duty in accordance with a delegation contract concluded with G as to the first and third reports, and that the Plaintiff was engaged in the plane captain’s duty in accordance with the delegation contract concluded with G, with regard to the first and third reports, with regard to the facts and evidence as seen earlier, as to whether the Plaintiff was acting as the plane captain, as to the first and third reports of this case, and the statements as set forth in subparagraphs 3 and 8, and the witness F’s testimony alone.