수입금액과 과세표준을 한쪽은 실지조사, 다른 한쪽은 추계조사·결정하더라도 적법함[국승]
Incheon District Court-2016-Gu 51744 ( December 16, 2016)
The revenue and tax base are legitimate even if one on-site investigation is conducted, the other is estimated investigation and determination.
As the business revenue amount and the tax base are different from those of the first instance judgment, the revenue amount and the tax base for each business year shall not be deemed illegal since one of the other on-site investigation and determination is illegal.
Article 66 of the Corporate Tax Act: Decision and Correction
2017Nu33178 Revocation of imposition of corporate tax, etc.
OO Resources Corporation
O Head of tax office
Incheon District Court Decision 2016Guhap51744 Decided December 16, 2016
August 30, 2017
October 25, 2017
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 4,735,735,735,490 (including additional tax) on July 1, 2015, in excess of KRW 124,798,710 among the disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 4,735,735,490 for the business year 2012, and the disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 1,650,187,340 (including additional tax) for the business year 2013, and ② The portion exceeding KRW 14,406,15,446 of the notice of change in the amount of income for the business year 2012, in excess of KRW 387,784,368 of the notice of change in the amount of income for the business year 2013, and the notice of change in
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasons for this Court concerning this case are as follows, since the reasons for this Court are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance other than to write down or add part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the meaning of the language used in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter the same shall apply to the judgment of the court of first instance).
2. Parts used or added;
○ The fifth 5th 13-14 acts include “The following facts shall be considered as Gap evidence 3, 5, Eul evidence 2, 4, and 5, and testimony of SongO witness of the trial court by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings or by adding it to the testimony of SongO, which is significant in this court.”
○ 6th page 16 " was sentenced and confirmed as they were," respectively.
○ The following shall be added subsequent to the last 5th day of the 8th page:
“In the presence of a witness at the trial, SongO stated to the effect that “The king president,” and “NO,” as a witness, did not in detail memory the contents of the X-cell file, but in connection with three sets, stated to the effect that “I would like to write down the unit price and tonnage both at the time of exportation and exportation, so I would like to set the unit price and tonnage.”
○ 8 10 to 11, “The fact that there is another ................................. The first part of the 13th part of the 13th part of the 13th part of the 13th part of the 0th part of the 0th part of the 0th part of the 0th part of the 0th part of the 0th part of the 0th part of the 0th part of the 0th part of the 0th part of the 0th part of the 0th part of the 13th part of the 0th part of the 0th part of the 13th part of the 0th part of the 8th part of the 13th part of the 0th part of the
The 10th page 4-5 of the 10th page "Plaintiffs" is "Defendants", and the 11th page "Nos. 4, 5" is "Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9".
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.