2. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant OO director is dismissed.

3. All the costs of litigation between the Plaintiff and Defendant OOO chief and the Plaintiff’s appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. On October 11, 2010, the disposition of imposition of each value-added tax by Defendant OO head of the tax office on the Plaintiff is revoked.

B. On October 12, 2010, the disposition of imposition of each global income tax by Defendant OOO head of the tax office against the Plaintiff is revoked in entirety.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff (as to the defendant OO chief of the tax office)

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant's OO chief of the tax office shall be revoked. The same shall apply to paragraph 1(a) of the claim.

(b) The head of the defendant OOO;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) partially changing the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance as prescribed in paragraph (2) and the Plaintiff’s assertion that was newly adopted at the appellate court is identical to that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, (b) see Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2. The modified part;

O The last 3th judgment of the first instance court is the "written draft" as the "written draft".

O Part V through 18 of the Judgment of the first instance court shall be deleted, and the following shall be added to that part:

[Plaintiff was indicted due to violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) (taxes), etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (taxes), and the first instance court rendered a judgment of innocence. The prosecutor and the Defendant appealed to Seoul High Court 2013No0000. The appellate court rendered a judgment of conviction as to the fact that the Plaintiff’s evasion of global income tax was also guilty, and the appellate court rendered a judgment of conviction as to all of the above two crimes. The Plaintiff appealed to the head of Suwon District Court 2015Do000, but the said appeal was dismissed on June 11, 2015).

O At the bottom of the 5th judgment of the first instance court, 2-2 evidence "2, 29, 31" shall be raised "2, 29, 31".

O The part from the bottom of the 11th instance judgment to the 13th 9th Myeon, shall be deleted, and the following shall be added thereto:

[1] Whether or not to impose additional tax and the burden of proof

Article 80 (3) of the Income Tax Act provides that "the head of a regional tax office or the head of a regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall determine or correct the tax base and the amount of tax in the relevant taxable period pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) on the basis of books and other evidentiary documents: Provided, That where it is impossible to calculate the amount of income on the grounds of account books or other evidentiary documents for the reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree, the amount of income may be determined by estimation, as prescribed by Presidential Decree," and Article 143 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10618, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "where necessary account books and evidential documents are nonexistent or important parts cannot be calculated on the basis

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff was asked to submit data necessary for calculating necessary expenses, such as books and documents, etc., to identify the acquisition value of the relevant security certificate, and failed to comply with such request. In calculating the global income tax’s global income tax’s global income tax’s global income tax’s global income tax’s global income tax’s global income tax’s global income tax’s global income tax’s global income tax’s global income tax

In order for the estimation of the revenue amount to be deemed reasonable, it is insufficient to only satisfy the requirements for the estimation of revenue amount. The content and method of estimation must be reasonable and reasonable to reflect the actual amount of revenue amount close to the truth in specific cases. In the event of a dispute over the legitimacy of the estimation method, the tax authority is required to bear the burden of proving the reasonableness and feasibility. However, if the tax authority estimates it in accordance with the method and procedure prescribed by the relevant provisions, the reasonableness and feasibility were proved once, and the specific contents are considerably unreasonable, and it is not appropriate to reflect the actual amount of revenue amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du7687, Oct. 14, 2010).

(2) Whether the method of estimating estimation is appropriate.

In full view of the following circumstances, since the head of the defendant OO tax office estimated the calculation according to the method and procedure prescribed by the relevant provisions of the income tax law, the estimation method under the simple expense rate has been proved to be reasonable and reasonable once.

Article 143 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides for the method of calculating the income amount under paragraph (3) by the standard expense rate (subparagraph 1), by the simple expense rate (subparagraph 1-2), by the method of partner authority (subparagraph 2), and by other methods deemed reasonable by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service (Paragraph 3), as one of the persons subject to simple expense rate under paragraph (4). Since the Plaintiff starts a new business in the taxable period in 2005, it is reasonable to estimate the income amount in 2005 by the simple expense rate. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff continues the same type of business in the taxable period and 2006 taxable period, it is reasonable to estimate the income amount in 206 and 207 by the same method.

(b) In reality, it is impossible to apply the method of using standard expense rate, which is another estimation method under the Income Tax Act, in the situation where it is impossible to at all confirm the purchase cost of the furnal security certificate, the rent of fixed assets, and the amount of income of other entrepreneurs engaged in the same business type

In light of the fact that although the Plaintiff does not fall under the 'financial business', it is difficult to conclude that it is unreasonable or unreasonable to estimate the Plaintiff's income amount by applying the simple expense rate of the 'other financial business (non-financial property rights purchase and loan)', in light of the fact that the 'public security certificate per se of the salary can be viewed as a type of intangible property right and the expense rate of more than 70% cannot be regarded as a low expense rate.

(3) Whether the method of estimated determination is unreasonable, etc.

The plaintiff must prove that it is inappropriate to reflect the actual amount of the revenue because the specific contents of the estimation method by the head of the defendant's OOO tax office are considerably unreasonable. However, considering the following circumstances, there is insufficient proof on this.

According to the purport of the argument in the statement No. 25-1, No. 26, No. 26, No. 27, and No. 28 of the evidence No. 25-1, No. 25-2, and No. 27 and No. 28, the plaintiff stated that, on December 14, 2005, the ChoO and EOO sold KRW 00,000,000 per unit, respectively, and received the price from the account. The plaintiff stated that, upon the decision to recommend a compromise, the OO Foundation transferred KRW 00,000 per unit to the trustee in bankruptcy of the OO Savings Bank, the 100,000,000 won per unit, and that, at the time of the investigation, the plaintiff purchased the OO's 1,000,000 won per unit and 000,000,000 won per unit, and that, at the time of the purchase of the O-2.

(b) As the Plaintiff, etc., organized an O committee and transferred the certificate of security at the lower price, and conducted a project to acquire the difference in terms of acquiring the difference, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff, etc. intended to purchase the price lower than the transfer price of KRW 00,000,000.

C. The plaintiff et al. submitted evidence supporting that he/she purchased part of the certificate of security on the enclosed party as KRW 00,000 per quarter. However, it is not all related to the statement of PO and POO that it was difficult to purchase the certificate of security on the enclosed party in the form of KRW 00,000,000 or less. In particular, POO and POO cannot entirely believe that they were involved in the business of the instant locking party as well as the plaintiff et al.

It is not easy for a construction business operator who has a certificate of frightness to transfer it directly to the OO without going through the plaintiff, etc.

(4) Actions

Therefore, the imposition of global income tax by Defendant OOO head of the instant tax office is lawful.

3. Additional determination

The plaintiff asserts that the certificate of satisfafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafa, is not subject to value-added tax, and thus the supply of goods is not determined,

As seen earlier, the certificate of the establishment of a charnel is related to 00,000s, excluding the 00,000 straws of smoke, among the 00,000 straws permitted by the O market. As such, the right to sell the straws of a charnel house, which is indicated by the certificate of the establishment of a charnel house, constitutes "the right that has real usage and realization of the straws of property value" and thus constitutes goods under the Value-Added Tax Act.

In addition, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff acquired 000,000 won from the previous construction company from August 1, 2005 to September 21, 2007, and sold 00,000 billion won to the OO, together with bothO and GaoO. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is groundless.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the defendant's director of the tax office in the judgment of the court of first instance as to defendant's OOO is unfair with different conclusions, the above part of the judgment of the court of first instance is accepted by the above defendant's appeal and the above part of the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, the plaintiff's claim against the above defendant is dismissed,