1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is modified as follows.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From April 2006, the Plaintiff delegated C, a certified tax accountant, with tax affairs such as bookkeeping agent and reporting agent, but transferred his office around October 2008 to the Defendant, who is a certified tax accountant, and delegated the tax affairs to the Defendant.

B. C filed a return of value-added tax for the first year of 2008, which was already reported in 2007 on April 18, 2007, May 28, 2007, each of the tax invoices of June 2, 2007, June 13, 2007, and June 13, 2007, erroneously reported KRW 75,834,000 (including value-added tax) in the transaction amount for the year of 2008. Defendant D did not find any error as above while settling the accounts for the year of 2008, and filed a return of corporate tax for the Plaintiff Company and the return of the wage and salary income tax for the Plaintiff Company B, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company.

C. On August 5, 2011, the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the strike additionally imposed 10,51,950 won of the value-added tax, including 3,657,958 won, and 5,819,112 won of the increased additional tax (29,131,927 - 23,312,815 won of the additional tax before the correction) on the ground that the Plaintiff filed an excessive return on purchase and an excessive deduction, and additionally imposed 23,054,110 won of the corporate tax, including 29,131,97,958 won.

In addition, on October 28, 201, the Director of the Yongsan Tax Office recognized that the excess amount of purchase declaration to B was included in the gross income of KRW 75,834,00 as a bonus for B, and imposed global income tax of KRW 27,487,140 and local income tax of KRW 2,748,710 as a bonus for B.

The Plaintiff and B filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants seeking compensation for damages equivalent to the amount of the tax additionally imposed on the grounds of excessive tax deduction. On December 24, 2013, the court of first instance (hereinafter “the Defendant”) rendered the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant breached the duty of due care as a good manager in handling the tax affairs delegated by the Plaintiff, and C was liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages, and C’s additional amount of value-added tax 3,657,958, and corporate tax 23,054,110, and delay damages therefrom, which are imposed on the ground of excessive tax deduction. The Defendant is jointly and severally and severally liable to pay the additional amount of corporate tax with C.