1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the written judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff donated cash to the temple of this case and was normally issued the donation receipts of this case, but the defendant did not recognize it as a donation donation and imposed a comprehensive income tax without recognizing it as a donation. The disposition of this case is unlawful.
B. The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.
C. 1) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of global income tax assessment, the burden of proof on the tax base, which serves as the basis of taxation, is on the tax authority, and the tax base is deducted necessary expenses from income, and thus, the tax authority bears the burden of proof of revenues and necessary expenses in principle. However, since necessary expenses are more favorable to the taxpayer, and most of the facts generating necessary expenses are located in the area under the control of the taxpayer, and thus the tax authority is difficult to prove. Thus, it accords with the concept of fairness to recognize the necessity of proof for the taxpayer when it is reasonable to have the taxpayer prove the tax payer considering difficulty of proof or equity between the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du1588, Sept. 23, 2004; 2007Du22955, Mar. 26, 2009). This legal doctrine applies to the case where special deduction is in most of the facts that generated special deduction, as well as to the tax payer’s control over the necessary expenses.