실지조사를 하더라도 과세표준을 결정할 수 없으므로 소득금액을 추계조사한 것은 적법함[국승]
Daejeon District Court 201Guhap2202 (No. 26, 2012)
Cho Jae-chul201 Jeon 2395 ( November 16, 2012)
Even if on-site investigation is not possible, it is legitimate to conduct estimated investigation of income amount.
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do1488 delivered on April 2, 2011) since the Plaintiff’s income amount calculated by means of the estimation survey is a case where it is evident that the tax base and tax amount cannot be determined even in a field investigation by means of
2012Nu2434 global income, revocation of such disposition, and partial payment of global income tax shall be refunded.
CHAPTER A
Head of Busan District Tax Office
Daejeon District Court Decision 201Guhap2202 Decided September 26, 2012
March 21, 2013
April 11, 2013
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
제1심 판결을 취소한다. 피고가 원고에 대하여，① 2010. 2. 4.에 한 2008년 귀속 종합 소득세 000원의，② 2011. 3. 1.에 한 ㉮2005년 귀속 종합소득세 0000원 의，㉯ 2006년 귀속 종합소득세 000원의， ㉰ 2007년 귀속 종합소득세 0000원의，㉱ 2008년 귀속 종합소득세 0000원의 ㉲ 2009년 귀속 종합소득세 000원(항소장 기재의0000원은 오기로 보인다)의， 2011. 6. 1.에 한 ㉮ 2005년 귀속 종합소득세 000원의，㉯ 2006년 귀속 종합소득세 000원 의 각 부과처분을 취소한다(원고의 항소장에는 피고가 2011. 3. 1.에 한 2008년 귀속 종합소득세 000원의 부과처분 취소를 구하고 있으나 위 금액은 2010. 2. 4.에 한 2008년 귀속 종합소득세 000원과 2011. 3. 1.에 한 2008년도 귀속 종합소득세 000원의 합계 금액인 000원의 오기로 보이므로 이 부분에 관한 청구취지를 위와 같이 정리한다).
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The grounds for social submission of this case by the court are as follows: "The plaintiff's office submitted" No. 7 of the first island No. 7, and [the plaintiff shall read the contents of each of the above certificates and answers (No. 8-1, 2, and No. 9) without reading the plaintiff's criminal charge against the violation of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality, and each of the above certificates and answers are not duly formed, so it is impossible to use them as evidence or is written differently from the fact, and there is no evidence to support the plaintiff's above assertion, and this part of the plaintiff's argument is without merit. 20 of the 8th page No. 20, "B is sufficient to invest money to the plaintiff and pay wages." < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17814, Oct. 29, 2005; Presidential Decree No. 20651, Oct. 1, 2005; Presidential Decree No. 20100, Mar. 1, 2006>
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.