1. The Defendant’s refusal to designate a conciliation team against the Plaintiff on December 26, 2011 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a law firm to which B, C, and D belong, and the attorneys registered as a certified tax accountant as follows.

On December 11, 2006, December 11, 2006, C, March 7, 2000, on February 4, 2001, 200. D, March 7, 200, March 200, 200.

From November of 200 to November of each year, the Plaintiff applied for designation as a conciliation team that can prepare a tax settlement statement pursuant to Article 50-3(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 65-3(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act and received the designation of a conciliation team from the Defendant. On December 30, 2010, the period of validity was designated as a conciliation team by the Defendant until December 31, 201.

C. On July 14, 2010, the Defendant received from the Minister of Strategy and Finance a reply from the Minister of Strategy and Finance that a law firm is not included in the conciliation team that can prepare a tax settlement statement prescribed in Article 50-3(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 65-3(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act. On April 4, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of the designation of the tax agency conciliation team on the ground that “law firm is not subject to designation of the conciliation team as provided in Article 50-3(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act

On November 21, 2011, the Plaintiff applied for the designation of the Plaintiff as a conciliation team to the Defendant. On December 27, 2011, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the designation of a conciliation team for the same reasons as the above paragraph (c).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On January 13, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the appeal, but was dismissed on March 22, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 3, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

Article 50-3 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 65-3 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act.