(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.9.24.선고 2018구합62270 판결

A. The Plaintiff is a certified tax accountant who operates a “A Tax Office” from November 22, 2006 to March 9, 2017, and works as the representative of B Incheon Branch from March 10, 2017.

B. The Plaintiff performed tax bookkeeping for the return of corporate tax for the year 2012 from 2012 to 2016 of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”). From July 12, 2017 to November 29, 2017, the Seoul Regional Tax Office confirmed that the instant company’s corporate tax evasion by appropriating the processing construction cost of KRW 23.6 billion from July 12, 2017 to November 29, 2017 of the instant company (hereinafter “instant tax investigation”).

D. On February 7, 2018, the director of the Central Tax Office of China requested disciplinary action against the plaintiff to the Certified Tax Accountants Disciplinary Committee on the ground that "the plaintiff violated the duty of loyalty under Article 12 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act by appropriating the processing cost of KRW 18.19 billion (hereinafter referred to as "the processing costs of this case") by filing a false declaration of corporate tax from 2014 to 2016 for the company of this case on the ground that disciplinary action against the plaintiff was limited to the statute of limitations from 2012 to 2013." On March 23, 2018, the Certified Tax Accountants Disciplinary Committee decided to take disciplinary action against the plaintiff for suspension of duty for the plaintiff on the ground that "the certified tax accountant disciplinary committee violated the duty of loyalty under Article 12 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act."

E. On March 28, 2018, according to the above resolution, the Defendant took a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff for two years of suspension from office (from May 1, 2018 to April 30, 2020) pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Certified Tax Accountant Act (hereinafter “instant measure”).

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number in the case of additional number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff had the instant company indicate the details of transactions with regard to which the withdrawal on the corporate passbook of the instant company is unclear. The Plaintiff, as well as the Plaintiff, had the instant company carry out the cost settlement by sufficient documentary evidence on the part without any adequate documentary evidence, such as the details of disbursement of simplified receipts for the small amount expenditure, and comparison of the corporate passbook. The Plaintiff, who was not authorized to compulsorily investigate the instant company, was the best way to carry out cost settlement based on the above documents. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have carried out a false account of the instant company. Accordingly, the instant disposition should be revoked because the grounds for disposition are not recognized.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

The following facts are acknowledged in full view of each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 to 8 of this title.

1) The details acknowledged as processing contractor in the instant tax investigation are as follows.

(unit: source)

A person shall be appointed.

2) On November 27, 2017, the Plaintiff stated in the Seoul Regional Tax Office as follows with respect to the instant tax investigation.

The details of the construction cost of this case are 0. It is confirmed that the accounting cost of the corporation was 0. It is confirmed that the 10.0 non-legal accounting method of the non-legal entity's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's non-legal firm's revenue and non-legal firm's non-legal firm's revenue.

In 2016, the internal document of the bookkeeping company is insufficient to receive evidence. The company could not be able to keep accounts at its expense. The company's simple receipt was sent from time to time to time to time with respect to small expenditure, and requires the company to keep accounts, such as cost of materials, welfare cost, cost of consumption, etc. at the construction site, and cost of accounting. Since the amount of expenditure is part of the amount deposited from the corporate passbook, not the processing process, and there is a ground for expenditure, it is impossible to deny it as an agent for bookkeeping without the authority to investigate (in 2016, the document stating the content of preparation, such as the account curriculum, etc.).In 2016, the internal document of the bookkeeping company is prepared to keep accounts at the expense of the bookkeeping company, and the additional document is prepared to keep the document, such as construction contract, etc., and it is also necessary to prepare the document, which is presented to the company without the authority to investigate.

3) On November 28, 2017, the representative D of the instant company stated in the Seoul Regional Tax Office as follows with respect to the instant tax investigation.

It is true that the original corporation printed out the corporate account without documentary evidence, and written the accounting subjects, such as external expenses and external processing expenses, in the remarks column of the expenditure details, and submitted them to the accounting office, and made a report to the construction cost in the presence of documentary evidence? This example is whether the construction cost without a receipt, etc. for the original contractor? The construction cost without a regular receipt is appropriated and instructed by the construction cost? The actual cost is paid without a legitimate receipt at the answer site, so it is ordered that the amount would be appropriated as the cost. In addition, the amount paid in the form of deposit is regarded as all the cost in the original company.(Omission) Upon examining the internal documents of the original company since 2013, the corporation selected the target corporation as a type of business in order to purchase the construction materials, etc. even if some of the construction materials, etc. were not actually purchased, then forged the name and seal of the purchaser, affixed them, affixed them, affixed them to it, and made up a false list of the receipts and specifications up to 30,000 won?

I directed that we will prepare a simple receipt. The 2015-si 2015-si 2015-si 2015-si 3000-si 3000-300-3000-300-300-300-300-300-60-30-30-60-30-60-30-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-30-30-60-30-30-60-30-60-60-30-6.

D. Determination

1) Article 17(1)1 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act is "the Minister of Strategy and Finance" if the certified tax accountant violates this Act.

In the case of such a violation, a disciplinary action may be ordered according to the resolution of the Certified Tax Accountants Disciplinary Committee, and Article 12(1) provides that "certified tax accountants shall perform their duties in good faith and maintain their dignity." The duty of good faith is the most fundamental and important duty of a certified tax accountant who is a tax specialist of public nature, and is to protect the rights and interests of taxpayers and to make them faithfully perform his duty of tax payment.

such duties shall be performed in good faith.

Meanwhile, Article 76(5) of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that where a corporation is supplied goods or services with a business operator prescribed by Presidential Decree in connection with its business and fails to obtain evidentiary documents falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 116(2) or receives false evidentiary documents, a corporation shall impose penalty for the so-called fee for the lack of qualified evidence, except in the case where the proviso of Article 116(2) applies. In light of the above, even if a corporation fails to obtain verification documents from the supplier, if any material exists that can objectively prove that it was supplied with goods or services even if it was unable to obtain verification documents prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 116(2) from the supplier, the corporation may be recognized as the purchase price or the cost of services, and only there is a disadvantage for a certified tax accountant to pay penalty tax. Therefore, if such objective evidentiary

2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff, despite the above facts and Gap evidence No. 6’s overall purport, can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances. ① Even if there is no additional evidence as to the portion of the corporate account transaction details of the instant company, the Plaintiff arbitrarily marked the corporate account in the form of external processing costs, etc. on the corporate account; ② based on the simple receipt, the Plaintiff included necessary expenses up to 5.49 billion won from 2012 to 2016. In particular, from 2014 to 2015, a simplified receipt issued 30,000 won for the instant company’s ice processing without any evidence, which appears to be appropriate for the Plaintiff’s submission of adequate evidence as necessary expenses for the instant company’s ice processing work without any further evidence, and thus, the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have been able to use the aforementioned ice processing work without any further evidence.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the name of the plaintiff is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.