1. The Defendant’s value-added tax for the second term of November 1, 2012 that was imposed on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on November 1, 2017 (including additional taxes), KRW 24,160,270, and KRW 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an attorney-at-law who establishes and operates an attorney-at-law office (hereinafter “instant legal office”) from January 17, 201 after completing business registration.

B. Around October 2013, the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of filing a revised return of value-added tax on the grounds that the Plaintiff provided legal services, such as legal representation, and underreporting the relevant revenue amount.

Accordingly, on November 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a revised return of value-added tax for the first time in 2013, adding the amount of KRW 512,00,000 to the tax base, and paid the value-added tax accordingly.

C. From September 26, 2016 to October 31, 2016, the head of the Namcheon District Tax Office conducted an integrated investigation into global income tax for the Plaintiff from September 26, 2016 to October 31, 2016. The total amount of KRW 631,00,000, which the staff B, etc. of the instant legal office supplied with legal services concerning the case of individual rehabilitation bankruptcy immunity, was omitted from the sales of the instant legal office; and the Plaintiff confirmed the fact that the actual taxable period of KRW 512,00,000, which was reported after filing a revised return on November 11, 201, was the second to second to 2012, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

On November 1, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the correction of the value-added tax of KRW 24,160,270 (including additional tax), value-added tax of KRW 1,486,430 (including additional tax), value-added tax of KRW 8,486,430 (including additional tax), value-added tax of KRW 6,416,070 (including additional tax), and value-added tax of KRW 1,126,540 (including additional tax) for the first quarter of year 2015.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition”, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. An entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff only lent only the name of attorney to B, etc., the office manager, etc.; and (b) provided legal services to the client and received the fees.

Therefore, the provision of the above services is followed.