B. The burden of proving the legality of the estimated taxation

(c) whether the estimated income standard is appropriate solely on the basis of the fact that the estimated income level was determined;

B. The estimated taxation under Article 33(4) of the former Corporate Tax Act (Act No. 2686, Dec. 21, 1974) is exceptionally acknowledged in cases where there is no taxpayer’s account books and documentary evidence, etc., which are the basis for the determination of tax base and amount of tax, or where it is not possible to impose tax by the basis taxation because the details are incomplete or false. Thus, it is limited to cases where it is impossible to conduct an actual investigation, and the method and contents of the estimation are so reasonable and reasonable as to reflect the actual amount of income near the truth. In such a case where the legitimacy of the estimated taxation is disputed, the burden of proving its reasonableness and validity is borne by the tax authority.

C. The measure of estimated taxation based on the amount calculated by 46.5%, which is a higher rate than the standard amount of income based on the Plaintiff’s actual income of the Plaintiff, based on the fact that the Plaintiff (hereinafter the same transportation company) was not equipped with evidence of his loss and received the estimation decision was unlawful as it lacks rationality and feasibility.

1. Under Articles 120 and 124 of the Income Tax Act, the standard rate of income by type of business determined by the Government pursuant to the provisions of Articles 120 and 124 of the Income Tax Act is a method of estimating a case where there is no book and documentary evidence necessary for calculating the tax base and the amount of tax, or where it is impossible to grasp the amount of income because the details are incomplete or false, so it can be determined so that it can be reflected in the amount of income loss as possible. In addition, the determination of the standard of income for the sole purpose of responding to a bona fide taxpayer regardless of the reflection of the amount of income loss should not be in violation of the purport of the above provisions of the Income Tax Act. However, according to Article 169-2 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service may determine a specified rate of income for an average company according to the degree of loyalty such as withholding, collecting, reporting data, and training transactions for the pertinent taxable period. Rather, it is difficult to conclude that the grounds for the differential determination under the above provisions above can not be deemed to have been reflected in the above provision 28.

2. The estimated taxation under Article 33(4) of the Corporate Tax Act is exceptionally acknowledged in cases where there is no taxpayer’s account books and documentary evidence, etc., which serve as the basis for the determination of tax base and amount of tax, or where it is impossible to impose tax by the basis taxation because the details are incomplete or false. Thus, it should be reasonable and reasonable to reflect the method and contents of the estimation in the amount of income near the truth, as well as in cases where it is impossible to investigate the actual amount of tax, so that the method and contents of the estimation can be reflected in the amount of income near the truth, and the burden of proof for its rationality

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff is a domestic corporation that runs a transportation subsidy business using a truck's revenue rate of 30,297,325 won when it reports the tax base of income in 1978 with a high rate of 1979.3.2, it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff's tax base was reasonable and reasonable as 00 won for 1978,000 won, and the tax base amount after deducting necessary expenses, was returned to 5,407,250 won. The defendant recognized that the tax base amount of the plaintiff's tax return was unreasonable and that the tax base amount of the plaintiff's tax was determined as 10,00 won for 20,000 won for 196,000 won for 30,000 won for 30,000,000 won for 19,000 won for 20,000 won for 30,000 won for 19,000 won for 36,0.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is justified and it cannot be reversed without examining the remaining grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)