The remaining appeals are dismissed.

1. The part concerning the imposition of each of the instant global income tax and the imposition of each of the instant global income tax on the first, second, 2004, first, 2005, and first, 2006

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance partially accepted by the court below, the court below judged that the plaintiff reported the account of this case to a business account under Article 160-5 of the Income Tax Act, and that since the plaintiff deposited several kinds of money in the account of this case before it, since all of the money was deposited in the account of this case, it cannot be viewed as the income from the operation of the funeral hall or funeral restaurant of this case. Thus, it is difficult to presume that the plaintiff's money deposited in the account of this case merely because the plaintiff did not actively prove the nature of money deposited in the account of this case, it is difficult to presume that the plaintiff's income from the operation of the funeral hall of this case or funeral restaurant of this case was acquired through the operation of this case. Thus, the court below held that there was no circumstance that the plaintiff can presume the money deposited in the account of this case in light of the empirical rule different from the tax authority's burden of proof in tax litigation as income from the operation of the funeral hall of this case or funeral restaurant of this case.

However, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a taxation disposition, since the tax base and tax amount notified by the tax authority are objectively existing, if the tax base and tax amount recognized by the disposition are excessive compared to the legitimate tax base and tax amount, the disposition of imposition is unlawful within the scope exceeding the reasonable tax base and tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6504, Mar. 28, 1989). Thus, whether the disposition of revocation of a taxation disposition is legitimate or not is determined depending on whether the amount of taxation exceeds the legitimate tax amount, and the parties can submit arguments and materials supporting the objective amount of tax obligations at the time of the closing of arguments in the fact-finding trial, and if the legitimate amount of tax to be lawfully imposed is calculated based on such materials, only the portion exceeding the legitimate tax amount should be revoked, and all of them should not be revoked (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90

According to the records, the plaintiff submitted a statement of actual income from 203 to 2007 (hereinafter "the statement of this case") as evidence of actual income, and recognized that annual income is 00 won more than the amount initially reported by the plaintiff at the time of initial report. Meanwhile, the statement of this case is to be prepared through the final confirmation and perusal of the contents of the goods, etc. between all customers prior to the retirement room after the funeral ceremony is completed, and the statement of this case is to be stated in detail; ② a copy of the statement of this case was delivered to desired customers; ③ the statement of this case was written for settlement between the plaintiff and customers, regardless of the tax investigation, and ③ the statement of this case was prepared for the statement of this case to reflect the internal document of this case, ④ the statement of this case was prepared for the settlement of accounts between the plaintiff and the original statement of this case at the time of initial report; ⑤ The statement of this case is consistent with the contents of the plaintiff's annual statement of this case's funeral service expenses, ⑤ the statement of this case's statement of this case.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the court below should have calculated the appropriate amount of tax based on the income based on the instant invoice, but it did not review the income arising from the instant invoice and did not err in the process of calculating the above amount of tax. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the adjudication in the revocation lawsuit, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

2. The part on the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2003

As seen earlier, the lower court erred in revoking the entire imposition of value-added tax solely on the ground that there was error in the process of calculating the tax amount without examining the revenues arising from the instant invoice. However, in the case of the imposition of value-added tax for the second period in 2003, the tax amount would rather be refunded if calculated according to the instant invoice. This is clearly based on the statement in the grounds of appeal submitted by the Defendant.

Therefore, as to the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2003 among the judgment below, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of confession or the judgment in the revocation lawsuit, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the imposition of global income tax and the imposition of value-added tax on the first half of 2004, second half of 2004, first half of 2005, and first half of 2006 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.