[소득세부과처분취소][판례집불게재]
Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14488 decided May 1, 200
The director of Busan District Office
January 24, 1986
Supreme Court Decision 85Nu132 Delivered on August 13, 1985
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The disposition imposing the amount of global income tax for the year 1980 agreed upon to the Plaintiff on November 6, 1983 by the Defendant, which imposed the amount of KRW 9,848,284, and the amount of KRW 2,045,236, shall be revoked. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant.
The plaintiff, who operated a restaurant in the name of the above 27th 259-27th 27th 19-2 of Busan Special Metropolitan City, Busan Special Metropolitan City and 19-2, had not reported the global income tax base for the business year 11,862,39 on May 1980, the original amount of the total sales on the settlement of accounts created by the plaintiff was also deducted from 105,246,012, which was 7,345,852 won which was added with some miscellaneous income in the same settlement of accounts, and then the plaintiff was aware that there was 18,540,719 won which was omitted in the entry of the above amount of income during the above period, and the defendant did not report the revised amount of 20th 7th 6th 7th 6th 7th 2th 196th 7th 7th 6th 7th 7th 7th 196 of the total sales amount claimed by the plaintiff.
In this context, the plaintiff's business income amount means the remaining amount after deducting necessary expenses required for the business's total income from the business's current year. Thus, the plaintiff's rejection of the above reported expenses by the defendant, even though there is no necessary expenses corresponding thereto, shall not be recognized as necessary expenses. The plaintiff's rejection of the above reported expenses by the defendant shall result in the whole omission of sales as income. The plaintiff paid 13,062,00 won for meat purchase expenses, including purchase of beef equivalent to 2,282,00 won from the fr31.7. 31. 1980 from the fr3. 31. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 2. 2.00 won for meat purchase expenses, and the above disposition which the plaintiff did not accept even if there is evidence such as tax invoice, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
However, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiff's business place's omission of revenue entry can not be deemed to simultaneously omit all the expenses for the revenue entry. Rather, the expenses for this portion shall be deemed to be included in the general management expenses of 105,246,012 under the current year's account settlement already reported by the plaintiff. Nevertheless, if only the expenses for the omission of revenue were omitted, such special circumstances should be asserted and proved by the plaintiff, rather than that of the plaintiff. Thus, each provision of subparagraph 3-8 through 13 in the tax invoice Gap evidence No. 3 cannot be deemed to be omitted in the calculation process of the original general management expenses, and it is difficult to believe that the content is not true because it is considered to be par value or time for the submission thereof, and it is also difficult to accept the defendant's determination that it is also consistent with the above argument, and it is not sufficient to acknowledge that it is an exception to the above provision of subparagraph 3-15, 16, and 18, and that it is not sufficient to acknowledge that it is an exception to the above case's evidence No. 17.
Therefore, the defendant's taxation disposition of this case is legitimate. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the above disposition is unlawful is dismissed without merit, and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who lost the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.
February 14, 1986
Judges Lee Sung-ho (Presiding Judge)