2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Of the reasoning of the judgment of this court, the part concerning the '1. The reason for the disposition (from 7th to 11th of the judgment of the court of first instance)' is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Of the instant dispositions, the imposition of global income tax for 1999, 200, and 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), based on the estimation of the tax amount. The imposition of global income tax for 1999, 200, and 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), is possible only when there is no evidence to prove the cost of the instant business establishment in order to make such estimation legitimate. However, the Defendant-Man Tax Office’s imposition of global income tax on the premise that the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff suffered a significant loss from the instant business establishment without any examination and reflection.

(2) According to the evidence on the sales cost and all expenses of the instant workplace submitted by the Plaintiff at the appellate court, the Plaintiff can be recognized to have suffered a total of KRW 000 won from January 1, 200 to September 30, 201 at the instant workplace, which is premised on the existence of income during the said period at least for the said period, and each imposition of global income tax in 200 and 2001 is unlawful (On the other hand, through a preparatory document dated March 8, 2012, which was stated on March 8, 2012, the date for the third pleading of the trial at the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is not the Plaintiff, but the actual operator of the instant workplace at the instant workplace at the instant workplace and the instant unregistered workplace at the same place of business, and each of the instant dispositions at the first instance court to the effect that the exclusion period was exceeded, both the previous arguments were withdrawn).

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment] The entry is as follows.

C. Determination

(1) As to the assertion that the estimated taxation by the defendant Kando Tax Office is unlawful

(A) According to the relevant legal principles, according to the proviso of Article 80 (3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6292 of Dec. 29, 2000; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), Article 143 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17032 of Dec. 29, 2000; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree"), which applies to the disposition of this case, the tax authority shall, in principle, determine the tax base and tax amount of global income tax by the actual amount revealed by the method of field investigation. However, if there is no book or documentary evidence presented by the taxpayer or the important part is not reliable and there is no other way for the tax authority to disclose this real amount, the tax authority shall prove it by estimation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu6809, Jan. 26, 196).

In addition, in order for the estimation of the tax base to be deemed legitimate under the relevant provisions such as the Act and the Enforcement Decree, it is insufficient to prove that the taxpayer satisfied the requirements for estimation of the tax base. The content and method of estimation should be reasonable and reasonable to reflect the actual value of the tax base close to the truth in specific cases. The burden of proving rationality and feasibility is imposed on the tax authority, but if the tax authority makes estimation in accordance with the methods and procedures prescribed by the relevant provisions, it is necessary to prove that the reasonableness and feasibility were proven once, and that it is not appropriate to reflect the actual value of the tax base because the specific contents are considerably unreasonable. In this context, it is insufficient to prove that the taxpayer merely denies the estimated amount of income or differs from the actual amount of the tax base, barring any special circumstances to resolve the reasonableness and feasibility of the estimation method adopted by the tax authority, and that there is no further need to prove the fact that the taxpayer’s submission of the false value of the tax base, which is the basis for the estimation method adopted by the tax authority, or that there is no more than the new amount of tax assessment method than the truth (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du17084.

On the other hand, in determining the global income tax base of a business operator with several workplaces, the amount of income, etc. must be investigated and determined by the same method for each workplace. Thus, a part of a workplace is not illegal even if the tax authority determines the tax base by the method of field investigation, and a part of a workplace determines the tax base by the method of field investigation (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu15756, Jun. 27, 1997; 2006Du9535, Jan. 31, 2008).

(B) Facts of recognition

In full view of the facts cited earlier and Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, and 15 (if there are serial numbers, the number omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the overall purport of the pleadings, the following facts may be acknowledged:

1) On March 6, 199, KimA, the head of the Plaintiff, made a business registration to operate the health and food retail business at the instant workplace, and subsequently reported and paid KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000

2) Upon reporting the Plaintiff’s tax evasion, the head of the Gu-ro Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on the instant place of business reported as of June 2009 by KimB as of September 30, 2001, and revealed that the actual business operator of the instant place of business was not KimA but the Plaintiff and the actual business operator of the instant place of business, as well as 00 won of the omitted sales in 2001 at the instant place of business.

3) At the time of the above tax investigation, the defendant Guro-gu director of the tax office requested the plaintiff to submit documentary evidence, such as a statement of complete payment data submitted by KimB while reporting the plaintiff's tax evasion, and the "statement of monthly allowances" does not contain accurate sales amount, and there is no documentary evidence verifying the receipt of the recipient as stated in the above statement, such as the material submitted by KimB as it is not sufficient to calculate the accurate omission amount of sales in the business place of this case and necessary expenses corresponding thereto. However, the plaintiff did not submit additional documentary evidence.

4) Accordingly, on June 25, 2009, the director of the Guro Tax Office decided to revise the tax base by the estimation investigation decision under the relevant provisions, such as there is no account books and documentary evidence corresponding to the omission of the above sales, and concluded the tax investigation and then sent a prior notice of taxation that added the value-added tax amount of KRW 000 (including additional tax, evidence No. 1-1), which levied on the Plaintiff for the amount of KRW 000 (including additional tax, evidence No. 1-2) of the omission of sales for the first term portion of 2001, with respect to the tax amount of KRW 00 (including additional tax, evidence No. 1-2) which was added to the omission of sales for the second term portion of 2001.

5) Meanwhile, with respect to the Plaintiff’s global income tax in 199 and 2000, the head of the Defendant’s tax office around that time deducted the tax amount calculated based on the tax base calculated by aggregating the total amount of income calculated on the basis of the total amount of income in 1999 and 2000 reported by the Plaintiff when operating an “O” pharmacy outside the instant place of business, and the total amount of income in 1999 and 2000. In relation to the instant place of business, the Defendant issued an advance notice of taxation imposing additional tax amount of KRW 00 for 1999 (including additional tax, evidence No. 1-3), ② for 2000 for 2000 (including additional tax, evidence No. 1-4).

6) In addition, with respect to the Plaintiff’s global income tax in 2001, separately from the amount calculated on the basis of the total amount of income reported by the Plaintiff while operating the above OO pharmacy, the head of the Defendant-U.S. also issued a prior notice of taxation imposing additional tax amount of KRW 000 (including additional tax, evidence B-5) by deducting the amount of global income tax from the amount of tax calculated on the basis of the tax base based on the tax base. The amount of income related to the operation of the instant workplace was waived by the field investigation method, and the amount of income calculated by multiplying the amount of income omitted by the standard income rate from the total amount of income calculated by adding the amount of income reported by the Plaintiff to the amount of sales reported by the Plaintiff under the name of the Doi Kim KimA.

7) However, as of April 15, 2010, the Tax Tribunal decided to correct the tax base and tax amount calculated by subtracting KRW 112,017,511 from the total amount of income calculated at the time of calculating the global income tax in 2001 as to the instant place of business, the Defendant-U.S. Director re-determination of correction to reduce the global income tax amount of KRW 000 in 2001 related to the instant place of business in the same manner as “Article 112,017,511 from the total amount of income (Article 9-1).”

(C) Determination

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the portion of global income tax for the year 199 and 2000 among the disposition of this case was determined by the actual business operator of the workplace of this case, not by KimA, but by the Plaintiff. As the actual business operator of the workplace of this case was found to be the Plaintiff, each of the tax base reported in the name of KimA in relation to the workplace of this case in 1999 and 2000, and the amount of income for the year 2000, which was determined based on the tax base recognized as the Plaintiff’s gross income amount and the amount of income for the year 199 and 200, the amount of global income tax for the year 199 and 200, which was already reported and paid by the Plaintiff

In addition, the submission of KimB, which reported the Plaintiff’s tax evasion at the time of the instant disposition, was insufficient to calculate necessary expenses corresponding to the omission of sales at the instant place of business in 2001, and the Plaintiff did not comply with a request to submit additional data necessary for calculating necessary expenses. In addition, unless there are special circumstances found in the records or circumstances that the Defendant, the director of the tax office, despite being fully able to conduct a field investigation on necessary expenses, may be deemed not to fall under the case where the necessary account books and documentary evidence in calculating the global income tax base in 2001 related to the operation of the instant place of business, are nonexistent or where important parts are incomplete. Thus, the necessity of the global income tax assessment in 201 among the instant disposition is recognized.

Furthermore, in revising the comprehensive income tax in 2001 against the plaintiff, as long as the amount of income is calculated by multiplying the total amount of income by the standard income rate revealed in the total amount of income as the primary method of sales in the workplace of this case, which is the primary method prescribed by the relevant provisions of the Act and the Enforcement Decree, and the tax base is estimated based on the estimation, its rationality and feasibility have been proved once. For the reasons as examined below, all the evidence submitted by the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff was submitted in '(2) is insufficient to conclude that the actual loss was caused by the operation of the workplace of this case between January 1, 200 and September 30, 201, or that the income amount based on the standard income rate as above is not appropriate to reflect the actual amount due to the gross amount of income. Furthermore, since there was no evidence supporting the fact that the plaintiff had a method of estimation close to the fact, it does not mean that the above estimation method taken by the defendant director of the tax office is unlawful.

Ultimately, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, premised on the premise that the Defendant-U.S. director of the Korea Tax Office made the instant disposition against the Plaintiff based on the illegal estimation investigation method (On the other hand, the Plaintiff did not explicitly assert new illegal grounds except the aforementioned illegal grounds that the Defendant-U.S. director withdrawn from the trial, and in light of the facts acknowledged earlier, it does not seem that there were any errors in the imposition of the above value-added tax).

(2) As to the assertion that the damage occurred from January 1, 200 to September 30, 2001

(4) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was not 10 years old or 10 years old or 20 years old or 20 years old or 20 years old or 10, and that the Plaintiff was 10 years old or 10 years old or 10 years old or 20, and that the Plaintiff was 10 years old or 10 years old or 0 years old or 20, and that the Plaintiff was 10 years old or later and 10 years old or later, the Plaintiff was 10 years old or later and 10 years old or later, was 10 years old or later and 10 years old or later, 20 years old or later, 20 years old or later, 20 years old or later, 3 years old or later, 10 years old or later, 20 years old or later, 20 years old or later, 3 years old or later, 30 years old or later, 30 years old or later, 10 years old or less.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is all dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.