[법인세등부과처분취소][공1984.8.1.(733),1210]
The validity of the pre-trial procedure only for the former among the imposition of corporate tax based on the same corporate income and the imposition of Class A earned income tax.
Even if the Defendant’s Class A earned income tax and the same defense detailed and disposition are based on the same corporate income as the corporate tax and the same defense detailed and disposition, as long as the previous trial procedure conducted by the Plaintiff was the only object of corporate tax and the same defense detailed and disposition, the effect of the previous trial procedure shall not affect the Class A earned income tax and the same defense detailed and disposition.
Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Korea-New Timber Corporation
Head of Mapo Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu635 delivered on October 7, 1981
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. Although the defendant's detailed and disposition of Class A of this case and the same defense detailed and disposition were based on the same corporate income of the same corporation as corporate tax and the same defense detailed and disposition, as long as the previous trial procedure conducted by the plaintiff was the only object of corporate tax and the same defense detailed and disposition, the validity of the previous trial procedure cannot be affected by the plaintiff's income tax and the same defense detailed and disposition. Thus, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff was subject to the previous trial procedure for corporate tax and the same defense detailed and disposition based on corporate tax and the same defense detailed and disposition were not subject to legitimate prior trial procedure, and therefore, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff was not subject to the same corporate tax and the same defense detailed and disposition based on corporate income of the same corporation as that of the tax disposition, and therefore, it cannot be subject to a new judgment of the court below
2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court below is insufficient, but the theory of lawsuit that the taxpayer's account book and other documentary evidence did not exist is merely that the plaintiff did not present such documentary evidence prior to the request for a trial. The court below determined that the defendant's decision to conduct an additional investigation by confirming the fact that the plaintiff presented some books and documentary evidence at the time of the request for a trial, but the important documentary evidence was incomplete, and the plaintiff failed to keep records in the account book and failed to keep records at the time of the request for a trial, and that the plaintiff could not disclose the actual amount of the income of the plaintiff corporation with respect to the documents, and therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in the lawsuit is inconsistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court below.
3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)