Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Unqualified tax agency carried out in a lending tax accountant's name
Supreme Court, May 28, 2020, 2015Do8490 (judgment)
Case name: 세무사법위반[무자격 세무대리 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does a person without tax accountant qualification, working in an association to which the taxpayer belongs, who collects the taxpayer's tax data, prepares the return with tax accounting software and files it in the name of a lending tax accountant, commit the offence under Article 22(1)(i) of the Tax Accountant Act?
Holding
Yes, in principle. Article 22(1)(i) of the Tax Accountant Act applies where a person without qualification represents a taxpayer without the direction and supervision of a qualified tax accountant, or, though not taking the form of representation, acts in the taxpayer's place or in substance leads the filing while only the outward form shows the taxpayer acting personally, in filings that require tax knowledge. So where such a person collects the taxpayer's tax data, prepares the return through a tax accounting software and files it in the name of a lending tax accountant, that person is punishable under the provision unless special circumstances such as the tax accountant's direction and supervision existed.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 납세자가 소속된 단체에서 세무대리를 할 자격이 없음에도 납세자의 편의를 도모한다는 명목으로 납세자의 과세자료를 수집하여 세무회계 프로그램을 통해 신고서를 작성한 후 대여받은 세무사 명의로 신고를 한 경우 그 세무사의 지휘·감독이 있었다는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이에 관여한 자는 처벌규정에 따라 처벌된다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, where a person, notwithstanding the lack of qualification to perform tax agency at an organization to which the taxpayer belongs, collects the taxpayer's taxable data in the name of facilitating the taxpayer's convenience, prepares a tax return through a tax accounting program, and then files the return in the name of a Certified Tax Accountant from whom the name was borrowed, the person who participated therein is punished under the penal provisions, unless there exist special circumstances such as the direction and supervision of that Certified Tax Accountant.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
세무사 자격이 없는 자가 세무사 자격이 있는 자의 지휘·감독 없이 납세자를 대리하거나, 대리의 형식을 취하지 아니하더라도 납세자를 대신하거나 사실상 신고를 주도하면서 외부적인 형식만 납세자가 직접 하는 것처럼 하는 등으로 세무지식의 이용이 필요한 신고 등을 한 경우를 의미한다
Unofficial English translation
meaning a case in which a person who is not a Certified Tax Accountant represents a taxpayer without the direction and supervision of a person who is a Certified Tax Accountant, or, even without taking the form of representation, acts in place of the taxpayer, or, in substance leading the filing while making it appear in external form as though the taxpayer were doing it directly, and the like, performs filing and other acts for which the use of tax knowledge is necessary
Factors
- 세무대리를 할 수 있는 사람을 세무사 등 일정한 자격을 가진 사람으로 엄격히 제한함으로써
- 세무사 자격이 없는 자가 세무사 자격이 있는 자의 지휘·감독 없이 납세자를 대리하거나
- 대리의 형식을 취하지 아니하더라도 납세자를 대신하거나
- 사실상 신고를 주도하면서 외부적인 형식만 납세자가 직접 하는 것처럼 하는 등으로
- 그 세무사의 지휘·감독이 있었다는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한
Unofficial English translation
• By strictly restricting those who may perform tax agency to persons holding certain qualifications such as Certified Tax Accountants,
• a person who is not a Certified Tax Accountant representing a taxpayer without the direction and supervision of a person who is a Certified Tax Accountant, or
• even without taking the form of representation, acting in place of the taxpayer, or
• in substance leading the filing while making it appear in external form as though the taxpayer were doing it directly, and the like, and
• unless there exist special circumstances such as the direction and supervision of that Certified Tax Accountant,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2015. 4. 9. 선고 2013다35788 판결(공2015상, 677)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2013Da35788 decided April 9, 2015 (Gong 2015 Sang, 677)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2015. 4. 9. 선고 2013다35788 판결(공2015상, 677)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What evidence shows that a lending tax accountant gave direction and supervision, so that a person who prepared and filed the returns escapes Article 22(1)(i)?
A later Supreme Court decision on when the lending tax accountant's direction and supervision exists, or an amendment to Article 2(1) or Article 22(1)(i) of the Tax Accountant Act, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Western District Court, in its judgment of 22 May 2015 (2015No129), convicted the defendant as a direct principal of the offence under Article 22(1)(i) of the Tax Accountant Act, on the view that he, without qualification, worked with the branch's staff to prepare the members' value-added tax returns through the tax accounting software and file them in the lending accountants' names. It rejected the defence of a justifiable act, holding that the motive and purpose of easing the members' burden might have been justified, but the requirements of the propriety and subsidiarity of the means were not met, since the members could have been assisted by guidance on filing. It also rejected the claim that the defendant had no awareness of the illegality, because he had not considered the risk of illegality or made a serious effort to avoid it, so even an honest mistake carried no justifiable reason.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It held that the defendant had committed the offence as a direct principal, not as an instigator or an indirect principal, and that there was no omission of the applicable provision or misapprehension of accomplice liability. It also found the reasoning below on Article 20 of the Criminal Act and Article 16 correct, and dismissed the appeal by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the lending tax accountant did in fact direct and supervise the preparation and filing of the returns, since the decision says that a person involved is not punishable under the provision where such a special circumstance existed.
- A person who only gives members guidance on how to make their own filings, rather than preparing and filing the returns for them.
- A mistaken belief about the law that is objectively justified, since the decision found no justifiable reason only on the facts that the defendant had not considered the risk or tried to avoid it.
Record verification notes
Establish what the defendant himself decided and did: here he decided on installing the software and on the advisory contracts with the lending tax accountants, and he encouraged the staff, received reports on the number of filings and approved them. Then look for any evidence that the lending accountants directed the work, since their mere lending of names did not amount to supervision on these facts. Keep the justifiable act and mistake of law arguments separate from the question of whether the conduct constituted tax agency work.
From the official text
Points at issue
세무사법에서 ‘세무대리’를 할 수 있는 자격을 엄격히 제한한 취지 / 세무사법 제22조 제1항 제1호가 적용되는 ‘세무사 자격이 없으면서 조세에 관한 신고 등의 세무대리를 한 경우’의 의미 / 납세자가 소속된 단체에서 세무대리를 할 자격이 없음에도 납세자의 편의를 도모한다는 명목으로 납세자의 과세자료를 수집하여 세무회계 프로그램을 통해 신고서를 작성한 후 대여받은 세무사 명의로 신고를 한 경우, 이에 관여한 자가 세무사법 제22조 제1항 제1호에 따라 처벌되는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
Unofficial English translation
The intent of the Certified Tax Accountant Act to strictly restrict those qualified to perform 'tax agency' / The meaning of 'a case in which one has performed tax agency, such as filing tax returns, without being a Certified Tax Accountant' to which Article 22 (1) 1 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act applies / Whether a person who, notwithstanding the lack of qualification to perform tax agency, participated in collecting the taxpayer's taxable data in the name of facilitating the taxpayer's convenience at an organization to which the taxpayer belongs, preparing a tax return through a tax accounting program, and then filing the return in the name of a Certified Tax Accountant from whom the name was borrowed is punished pursuant to Article 22 (1) 1 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act (in principle, affirmative)
Summary of the holding
세무사법 제22조 제1항 제1호(이하 ‘처벌규정’이라고 한다)는 세무사 자격이 없는 자가 ‘세무대리’를 하면 3년 이하의 징역 또는 3천만 원 이하의 벌금에 처하도록 규정하고 있다. 여기서 ‘세무대리’란 세무사가 납세자 등의 위임을 받아 세무사법 제2조 각호의 행위 또는 업무를 수행하는 것을 말하는데, 이러한 ‘세무대리’에는 조세에 관한 신고·신청·청구 등의 대리가 포함된다(세무사법 제2조 제1호). 이들 규정의 입법 취지는 세무대리를 할 수 있는 사람을 세무사 등 일정한 자격을 가진 사람으로 엄격히 제한함으로써 건전한 세무질서를 확립하고 납세자의 정당한 권익을 보호하며 세무대리행위의 적정성과 공정성을 확보하고자 하는 데 있다. 이와 같은 처벌규정과 관련 규정의 문언과 체계, 세무사법이 세무대리를 할 수 있는 자격을 엄격히 제한한 취지 등에 비추어 볼 때, 처벌규정이 적용되는 세무사 자격이 없으면서 조세에 관한 신고 등의 ‘세무대리’를 한 경우란 세무사 자격이 없는 자가 세무사 자격이 있는 자의 지휘·감독 없이 납세자를 대리하거나, 대리의 형식을 취하지 아니하더라도 납세자를 대신하거나 사실상 신고를 주도하면서 외부적인 형식만 납세자가 직접 하는 것처럼 하는 등으로 세무지식의 이용이 필요한 신고 등을 한 경우를 의미한다. 따라서 납세자가 소속된 단체에서 세무대리를 할 자격이 없음에도 납세자의 편의를 도모한다는 명목으로 납세자의 과세자료를 수집하여 세무회계 프로그램을 통해 신고서를 작성한 후 대여받은 세무사 명의로 신고를 한 경우 그 세무사의 지휘·감독이 있었다는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이에 관여한 자는 처벌규정에 따라 처벌된다.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
세무사법 제2조 제1호, 제22조 제1항 제1호
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger