1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of a certified tax accountant and operated “C” in Seo-gu, Busan.

B. On June 30, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared a certificate of bona fide return under Article 70-2(1) of the Income Tax Act in relation to the final return of tax base of global income for which the Plaintiff was liable to verify the bona fide return on June 30, 2012.

C. As a result of conducting a tax investigation with respect to E hospital from May 27, 2013 to June 12, 2013, the head of Seosan District Tax Office: (a) included KRW 394,698,400 as false expenses when filing a global income tax return for the year 201; and (b) discovered omission of KRW 103,00,000 in total by intentionally omitting a report on employment intent wage of KRW 100,000 for the purpose of reducing the root.

On September 24, 2013, the director of Busan Regional Tax Office requested disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff aided and aided the omission of the return of paid benefits by the delegated company and appropriated the processing expenses, thereby falsely confirming the amount of KRW 495,00,000,000.

E. On December 20, 2013, the Certified Tax Accountants Disciplinary Committee decided to take a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 17 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act on the ground that the Plaintiff falsely verified the false entry of the F’s account book and the certificate of bona fide return, and that the Plaintiff violated the duty of good faith under Article 12 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act. In accordance with the above resolution, the Defendant was subject to a disciplinary measure of one year of suspension from office (from February 1, 2014 to January 31, 2015) and five million won of a fine for negligence against the Plaintiff on December 23, 2013.

The disposition of this case is referred to as the "disposition of this case"

(f) The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on June 3, 2014. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal are as follows: (a) and (b) Nos. 1, 5, and 1 through 3