(b) The case holding that there is no rationality in the estimation method converted into the omitted sale price on the ground that the ratio of all the purchase and sale prices of meat reported by a popular restaurant business operator who mainly sells sugar is the same as the ratio of the omitted purchase price and the omitted sale price; and

C. Appropriateness of a measure to determine the tax base by mixing a single on-site investigation and a separate on-site investigation (negative)

(b) The case holding that the method of calculating the omitted sales price by deeming that the ratio of all the purchase and sale prices of meat reported by a popular restaurant business operator who mainly sells the swayes is the same as the ratio of the omitted purchase price and the omitted sale price, and that the method of calculating the omitted sales price is not only a basis in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Article 69 (1) 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13199 of Dec. 31, 190), and it cannot be concluded that there is rationality

C. It is not a taxation method recognized by the pertinent statutes, such as the Value-Added Tax Act, to determine the tax base by mixing the on-site investigation and estimated investigation of a single taxable object

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s tax base return of the value-added tax for the second and second term portion of 1987 of this case was based on the Plaintiff’s use of food manufacturing without keeping a book on the part of the purchase price of inseminators, which are raw materials, and that the purchase tax amount for alcoholic beverages and potables was excessively reported, and that the Defendant’s use of the above inseminators to estimate and correct the purchase price for the purchased meat, other than the purchased meat omitted by calculating and correcting the purchase price of 44,560,50 won for the first term portion of 145,704,594 won for the total sale price of 1987 of this case, and that the Defendant’s use of the inseminators to calculate the 1,560,500 won for the first term portion of 1,000 won for the first term portion of 1,000 won for the second term portion of the purchase price for the second term of 1,000,00.

2. According to Article 69(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13199, Dec. 31, 1990) and Article 69(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13199, Dec. 31, 1990), the tax authority is responsible for proving that there is a reasonable and reasonable basis for determination of tax base and amount of tax by estimation because it is impossible to make a determination of tax base and amount of tax by on-site investigation, and that there is a reasonable and reasonable basis for determination of tax base and amount of tax by estimation. As such, the tax authority is responsible for proving that there is a basis for determination of tax base and amount of tax by estimation by either one of the total input input, cost-related ratio, goods turnover ratio, and

As stated by the court below, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant's estimation method is reasonable in terms of the defendant's estimation method that the ratio of all the purchase and sale prices of the meat reported by the plaintiff to all the purchase and sale prices of the meat is the same as the ratio of the omitted purchase and sale prices of the meat reported by the plaintiff, as well as the calculation method of the omitted sale prices.

3. In addition, it is a precedent that the determination of the tax base is not a way of taxation recognized by the related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Value-Added Tax Act, in combination with on-site investigation and estimated investigation on a single taxable object (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu5508, Jan. 23, 1990). As determined by the court below, as determined by the court below, it is obvious that the Defendant’s correction of the tax base and tax amount by deeming the sales amount, which is the tax base of the value-added tax for the first and second years of 1987 of this case, to the real sales amount reported by the Plaintiff as the total sales

4. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)