[2] The case holding that the compensation received by the real estate lessor under the pretext of business loss compensation following the discontinuation of the leasing business at the time of the transfer of the business place constitutes the business income included

[3] In a case where a tax assessment is made on the omitted income by the on-site investigation decision, the burden of proving the omission of filing a return on the expenses incurred in relation to the omitted income (=taxpayer), and whether it can be determined by the method of an on-site investigation even if the amount

[4] Whether the method of determining the global income tax base of a business entity with several places of business ought to be the same for each place of business (negative)

[2] The case holding that the compensation received by the real estate lessor under the pretext of business loss compensation following the discontinuation of the leasing business at the time of the transfer of the business place constitutes the business income included in the

[3] When a tax assessment is conducted on the omitted income by a field investigation decision, unless there is evidence that there was a separate expense corresponding to the omitted income, the total amount of the income should be added to the income amount, and the cost corresponding to the omitted income has also been omitted in the return, the taxpayer who seeks a separate deduction shall assert and prove it, and when the amount of income can be determined by the method of the field investigation, the method of the additional investigation shall not be determined.

[4] In determining the global income tax base of a business operator with several places of business, the income, etc. is not necessarily required to be investigated and determined by the same method in each place of business.

1. According to Article 19(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same), income generated from agriculture, forestry, fishery, mining, manufacturing, wholesale, retail, construction, and real estate business, etc. is defined as business income. According to Article 51(3)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, in calculating the total amount of business income, the amount of income that has accrued or is to accrue to the relevant business shall be included in the total amount of income. According to Article 94(1) of the former Income Tax Act, the income generated from the transfer of land, buildings, rights to real estate, and stocks or equity shares, etc. prescribed in each subparagraph shall be defined as capital gains.

In full view of these relevant provisions, compensation paid by a business operator in relation to the expropriation or transfer of a business and its contents are capital gains if they are compensation for assets, etc. subject to capital gains tax, and compensation paid in order to compensate for losses of other assets, such as compensation for losses of business, compensation for business suspension or closure, compensation for transfer, etc. in relation to the business in question, it is reasonable to regard them as business income from the pattern of the business and include them in the total amount of income.

The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff leased the housing of this case from November 1, 1993 to November 2001, and around July 10, 2000, the housing of this case was registered as a real estate business operator for the long-term lease of multi-family housing with its business place, and that the plaintiff received the compensation of this case under the name of business loss compensation for the discontinuance of the above leasing business, separately from the transfer price of the housing of this case around May 2002, which was around the time of the transfer of the housing of this case. In light of the plaintiff's business operation contents, period, size, the payment circumstance and the time of the compensation of this case, the compensation of this case was paid not to the income generated from the transfer or lease of the housing of this case but to the compensation for losses related to the rental business of this case, so it cannot be viewed as transfer income or real estate rental income, and it constitutes business income included in the total amount of income.

In light of the above legal principles, relevant regulations and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to capital gains, business income and real estate rental income under the Income Tax Act.

2. In a case where a tax assessment is made with respect to omitted income, unless there is any evidence that there was a separate expense corresponding to the omitted income, the total amount of the revenue should be added to the income amount, and the expense corresponding to the omitted income has also been returned or omitted, a taxpayer requesting a separate deduction shall assert and prove it. In addition, when the income amount can be determined by the method of a field investigation, it shall not be determined by the method of a separate investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu10179, Jul. 12, 1991; 2001Du4399, Mar. 11, 2003).

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant added the compensation amount of this case, which is the omission of the plaintiff's revenue amount, to the total income amount by the on-site investigation, and it is difficult to recognize the necessary expenses corresponding to the omission income, and the amount should be determined by the estimation investigation method, and there is no error of law such as

In addition, in determining the global income tax base of a business operator with several places of business, the income, etc. is not necessarily required to be investigated and determined by the same method for each place of business, and the court below is just in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the amount of the compensation of this case should also be determined by the estimation investigation on the ground that the business income of the plaintiff in another place of business not related to the compensation of this case was conducted by the estimation investigation method, and there is no error

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to invoke the instant case as they differ from the instant case.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)