1. On the first, second, and third grounds for appeal

According to Articles 82, 92, and 94 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), Articles 141 (1), 142 (1) 2, and 169 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1467 of Dec. 31, 1994; hereinafter referred to as the "Decree"), where a real estate dealer calculates the amount of tax under Article 82 (2) 2 of the Act with regard to global income of the real estate dealer, the profit margin of the real estate broker shall be the amount calculated by deducting necessary expenses from the actual sale price. Where there is no book or lack of evidential documents necessary for calculating the tax base, the amount of profit margin of the real estate dealer shall be calculated by multiplying the actual sale price by the standard transaction rate of income per year, and where the total amount of the income amount of the real estate is more than 10 billion won per year and per year, it shall be determined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff, as a person subject to double-entry bookkeeping from September 1, 1994, was obliged to enter the purchase price at the time of the acquisition of the site of the building of this case, and without properly entering it, reported the estimated income by multiplying the standard income rate of real estate sales in 1994, which was determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service in 1994, by 25%, among the standard income rate of real estate sales in 1994, which was determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service as the standard income rate of real estate sales in 194, and the disposition of this case was taken by the defendant as a result of estimated investigation and determination. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service determined the standard income rate of the year 1994, which was determined that the amount of income of each business place of this case was 30 million won or more or that the amount of income of this case should be added to 20% of the standard income rate of the plaintiff's tax base of this case.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just in accordance with the above laws and regulations, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to comparative taxation system. The judgments cited in the grounds of appeal cannot be viewed as complying with the assertion. The grounds of appeal as to this point are rejected.

2. On the fourth ground for appeal

Even if the policy effect leading up to entry can actually be accompanied by the application of the entry rate, the false entry rate itself is one of the estimation method of the tax base for making the estimation of income more close to the actual amount by accurately reflecting the income differential according to the size of income as much as possible. On the other hand, the additional tax as provided in Article 121(4) of the Act differs from the administrative sanctions imposed as prescribed by the Act in cases where the taxpayer violates the entry duty without any justifiable reason in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose tax and the realization of the tax claim, and thus, it does not constitute a double taxation to impose the additional tax for insincere entry after setting the tax base by applying the additional rate for false entry.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to duplicate taxation. The ground of appeal disputing this issue is not accepted.

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

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)