In general, the burden of proof regarding the facts requiring taxation exists in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a disposition imposing tax. However, in a case where the facts can be inferred in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit, unless it is proven that the other party is inappropriate to apply the empirical rule, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition is an unlawful disposition lacking the taxation requirement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du6392, Nov. 13, 2002; 2006Du13831, May 29, 2008). Meanwhile, even if it is not bound by the facts found in the original civil lawsuit or a criminal trial, the facts established in the final and conclusive criminal judgment cannot be rejected without permission on the ground that they were sufficiently material to recognize facts unless there are special circumstances where it cannot be employed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6392, Oct. 8, 1985).

The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance and found the facts as indicated in its holding, and found the following facts: (a) The second instance court found that the second instance company (hereinafter referred to as the "saluty") issued and delivered each of the tax invoices of this case to the plaintiff was guilty of the fact that the second instance company (hereinafter referred to as the "saluty") filed an accusation with the prosecutor on the data and issued false sales tax invoices including each of the tax invoices of this case; and (b) the second instance court determined that the plaintiff's disposition of this case was lawful based on the following facts: (a) it was confirmed that the second instance company (hereinafter referred to as the "saluty") issued and delivered the tax invoices of this case was not legitimate: (b) the second instance court did not confirm the fact that the second instance company's payment was made on behalf of the plaintiff's company in the accounts in the name of the plaintiff; and (c) the fact that the plaintiff was not made on the basis that the plaintiff's actual payment was made on the basis of cash receipts of this case and similar facts.

Upon examining the records in light of the above legal principles, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof and the degree of proof, or by violating the logical and empirical rules.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)