B. Whether it is reasonable to determine the tax base by the method of on-site investigation for real estate transactions in which account books and documentary evidence are not kept.

(c) Whether the global income tax on the transfer of land for public project falls under the reduction and exemption under Article 57 (1) of the previous Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act;

(d) The legal nature of the penalty tax and whether the site for the relevant statute constitutes a justifiable ground for exempting the penalty tax;

(e) Where a person who has registered a real estate rental business as a type, temporarily leases a building after constructing it, whether it constitutes a transfer of business subject to non-taxation under the Value-Added Tax Act.

B. The taxation authority should determine the tax base by applying the standard income ratio to the total amount of income by the method of on-site investigation as to real estate transactions where necessary books and documentary evidence are not kept in calculating the global income tax base.

C. The provisions on the requirements for non-taxation or tax reduction and exemption will result in a result contrary to the principle of equity in taxation, and thus, they should be strictly interpreted as well as the provisions on the requirements for taxation. Therefore, the provisions on reduction and exemption for the transfer of land for public project under Article 57 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4285 of Dec. 31, 190) are exclusively subject to capital gains tax or special surtax, so the above reduction and exemption provisions shall not be extended or analogically applied to the case where global income tax is imposed on the transfer of

D. In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed pursuant to the law in cases where a taxpayer violates a return, tax liability, etc. as prescribed by the law without justifiable grounds, the taxpayer’s intention or negligence shall not be considered, and it shall not be deemed that the land level in accordance with the law constitutes justifiable grounds.

(e) Even if a person who registered a real estate rental business as a type of real estate sales businessman temporarily leases a building after constructing a new building and transfers it to another person, the transfer shall not constitute a transfer of a non-taxable business under the Value-Added Tax Act if the transfer takes place as part

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. On the 1, 7, and 8 points

Whether a real estate transaction constitutes a real estate transaction, which is a requirement for taxation of business income tax and value-added tax, should be determined in light of social norms by considering whether the transaction is for profit, and whether the transaction has continuity and repetition to the extent that it can be seen as a business activity in light of its size, frequency, mode, etc. In addition, Article 1(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act is merely an exceptional provision on cases that can be seen as a real estate transaction, and so long as the real estate transaction as a whole took place with continuity and repetition under the above provision as a whole with its business objective, the business feasibility of the transaction during the taxation period is not denied (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu10306, Apr. 11, 19

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff acquired and transferred the real estate of this case eight times from 1986 to 1990, and the land and buildings of this case were also transferred four times in 1988, including the above real estate transactions, and that the real estate transactions were mainly expected to increase since 1981 to 190 under the name of the plaintiff and his wife, including the above real estate transactions, and that the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as seen above, since 76,89.9 square meters acquired real estate of 76,89.9 square meters over 67 times, and transferred the real estate of this case to 8,656.47 square meters over 11,315.69 square meters over 111 times, and since 198, the court below's dismissal of the plaintiff and the land of this case as an employee of △△△△△△△, which had been recognized as an employee of Seoul 198.19.3.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In light of the records, the decision of the court below that the defendant decided the tax base by applying the income standard rate to the total amount of income by the method of the on-site investigation as to the real estate transaction in the case Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7 of the plaintiff who did not keep necessary account books and documentary evidence in calculating the global income tax base is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as omission of judgment, incomplete deliberation, or

3. On the third ground for appeal

The provisions on the requirements for non-taxation or tax reduction and exemption will result in a result contrary to the principle of equity in taxation, and thus, they should be strictly interpreted as in the same manner as the provisions on the requirements for taxation (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7191 delivered on May 22, 1990). The provisions on reduction and exemption for the transfer of land for public business under Article 57 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4285 delivered on December 31, 1990) are limited to capital gains tax or special surtax, so the said provisions may not be extended or analogically applied to the case where global income tax is imposed on the transfer of the above land, unless otherwise specified.

The court below's determination that the disposition of this case is correct on the premise that the income from the transfer of land No. 5, which was made on May 18, 1989, is not subject to global income tax, which was implemented at the time, under Article 57 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, is not subject to reduction or exemption. It is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles such as the theory of lawsuit.

4. On the fourth ground for appeal

Under the tax law, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of tax claims, the taxpayer's intention and negligence is not considered, and the taxpayer's intention and negligence is not considered, and the land of the law does not constitute justifiable reasons (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu20467 delivered on August 26, 1994).

In the same purport, the court below was just in holding that even if the plaintiff did not distinguish the income from the transfer of the real estate of this case from the transfer income or the global income, it did not err in the imposition of the penalty tax of this case since it did not know the tax law properly. It did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory

In addition, the theory of the lawsuit does not deduct the amount of voluntary payment of the transfer income tax in the year 1989 and the year 1990, and it is wrong that the penalty tax in this case was imposed. However, it is not a legitimate ground of appeal as a new argument that was not in the original trial, and it is not a legitimate ground of appeal, and there is no such error in the record. The argument is without merit.

5. On the fifth ground for appeal

In determining global income tax amount in the year 1989 and the year 1990, the theory of lawsuit contains an error of law that the plaintiff did not deduct the tax amount already paid in accordance with the voluntary or additional decision notice. However, as a new assertion that was not in the original trial, it does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal, and as a result, it cannot be found that there was such error as to the voluntary payment tax amount, and as such, the plaintiff has already notified the plaintiff of the refund of the same tax amount with respect to the tax amount paid by the plaintiff by the additional

In addition, according to the records, the theory of the lawsuit was erroneous in the application of the tax rate to the 6th real estate of this case, but the decision of the reduction was notified to the plaintiff after the correction of the part. Therefore, the argument is without merit.

6. On the sixth ground for appeal

Even if a person who registered a real estate as a real estate sales businessman temporarily leases a building after constructing a new building and transfers it to another person, if the transfer takes place as a part of his business activities as a real estate sales businessman, it shall not constitute a transfer of business subject to non-taxation under the Value-Added Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu524 delivered on April 27, 1993)

In the same purport, the court below is just and acceptable to determine that the building No. 2 of this case constitutes the subject of value-added tax, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles like the theory of lawsuit. There is no merit

7. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)