The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be admitted by integrating each of the statements in Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, and Eul evidence 2-1 to 5:

(1) 피고는, ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 소재 ㅇㅇ빌딩, 같은 동 ㅇㅇ번지 소재 ㅇㅇ빌딩,

같은구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 소재 ㅇㅇ빌딩 및 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 소재 ㅇㅇ빌딩을 소유하면서 부동산임대업 등을 하던 원고가 1993년 귀속 임대소득 등 종합소득에 대하여 납부할 세액이 없다고 신고하자 이에 대하여 구 소득세법(1994. 12. 22. 법률 제4803호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 법 이라 한다) 제118조 의 규정에 의한 실질조사를 하여, 원고에게 임대소득 등 종합소득 금2,663,595,581원(계산내역 및 추계방법은 별지 제2. 소득계산표 기재 참조)이 발생하였음에도 원고가 그 신고를 누락하였다 하여 이에 대하여 1995. 12. 17. 1993년 귀속 종합소득세로 금1,552,667,930원을 부과하였다(세액결정 내역은 별지 제1. 세액계산표 ㉮항 참조).

(2) After that, on April 14, 1997, the National Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s interest income through the Plaintiff’s bill discount on the basis of the above disposition, and the Defendant corrected the above and reduced the Plaintiff’s total income tax reverted to year 1993 to KRW 1,538,370,370 (see the attached Table 1. (2) and the attached Table 1. (3) and the attached Table 2. (3) The Defendant’s disposition imposing the Defendant’s disposition of imposing the corrected amount on the Plaintiff’s interest income.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that the instant disposition is a legitimate disposition by applying the relevant laws and regulations to the interest income through a bill discount based on the average discount rate for a period other than the Plaintiff’s unreported bill discount amount, which is revealed by the Plaintiff’s actual investigation based on the Plaintiff’s account books, etc. as to global income, including the Plaintiff’s rental income for the year 193, as well as the Plaintiff’s rental income, etc.

B. On this issue, the Plaintiff asserts that the following grounds for illegality exist.

(1) 먼저 임대소득과 관련하여 원고는 피고 인정과 같이 원고가 처음 신고한 금액 외에 추가로 금1,062,526,491원의 임대수입을 얻은 바 없음에도 불구하고, 피고는 아무런 근거없이 원고가 위와 같은 금액의 임대수입을 얻고서도 이를 신고하지 않았다고 인정하였으며, 가사 원고가 그와 같은 임대수입을 얻었다 하더라도 한편으로는 위 ㅇㅇ빌딩에 대하여 수리廚 합계 금118,125,018원을 지출하는 등 위 4개 빌딩의 수리비로 합계 금506,611,960원과 기계장치 및 비품구입대로 합계 금85,578,000원을 지출하였으므로 이 금액들은 모두 필요경비로서 원고의 수입금액에서 공제되어야 한다.

(2) With respect to interest income from bill discount, a major portion of the 863 bills issued by the defendant, which the plaintiff had been discounted from January 1, 1993 to November 30 of the same year, was calculated, and a considerable number of bills were not considered even though payment was refused later, and income calculation therefrom was based on the average discount rate of 7.71% determined by the estimate survey, as seen in attached Table 2-A of Income Calculation Table 2. The basis for the decision is that the bill was discounted by the plaintiff from December 2, 1993 to March 26, 1994. Furthermore, even though a large number of bills were rejected later, it was not considered as well, and it did not meet the above average discount rate of 7.1%, which was determined later, and thus, it did not meet the requirements for imposition without any reasonable basis. Thus, the part of the bill issued by the defendant is found to be unreasonable.

(3) In relation to interest income from a loan, there is an error of finding the plaintiff to have received interest income from the loan without any ground, even though the plaintiff lent some amount of money to the non-party listed in attached Table 2-B of Income Calculation Table 2, or made a monetary transaction based on the purchase and sale contract cancellation or lease from such non-party.

3. Determination

Therefore, this paper examines the following: (a) the amount of global income belonging to 1993, including the Plaintiff’s rental income and interest income; and (b) whether it is legitimate for the Defendant to estimate the interest income through the Plaintiff’s bill discount.

(a) Fact finding;

아래의 각 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없거나, 위 갑제1호증의 2, 갑제6호증의 2, 갑제7호증의 1 내지 13,15 내지 23,26 내지 28, 을제3 내지 6,9호증의 각 1 내지 3, 을제7,8,14호증, 을제10 내지 12호증의 각 1,2, 을제13호증의 1 내지 4의 각 기재(단, 위 갑제6호증의 2의 일부 기재 중 뒤에서 배척하는 부분 제외)와 증인 김ㅇㅇ의 일부 증언(단, 뒤에서 배척하는 부분 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 종합하여 이를 인정할 수 있고, 이에 일부 반하여 원고가 위 주장과 같이 임대수입 내지 이자소득을 얻은 일이 없다든지, 위 4개 빌딩의 수리비로 아래 인정의 금원을 초과하여 추가로 비용이 지출되었다는 점 등에 부합하는 듯한 위 갑제6호증의 2, 갑제2,4호증의 각 1 내지 3, 갑제5호증, 갑제6호증의 1의 일부 기재와 위 김ㅇㅇ, 증인 이ㅇㅇ, 윤ㅇㅇ의 각 일부 증언은 믿지 아니하며, 갑제7호증의 14,24,25의 각 기재는 이에 방해가 되지 아니한다.

(1) The Plaintiff reported KRW 446,468,491 with the leased revenue in 1993, which was acquired by possessing the said four buildings and operating the leasing business. However, the Plaintiff also acquired additional leased revenue of KRW 1,062,526,491 as stated in attached Table 2.1 of the Income Calculation Table.

(2) 한편, 위 임대수입에 대하여 원고가 신고하거나 실지조사된 필요경비는 피고가 인정한 금1,005,024,581원 외에도 원고가 위 ㅇㅇ빌딩에 대한 1993. 1.경부터 같은 해 5.경까지의 수리비로 별지 제3. 필요경비 내역표 기재와 같이 추가 지출한 합계 금111,517,088원이 있다.

(3) As shown in attached Table 2-A of the Income Calculation Table 2, the Plaintiff received interest income by discounting KRW 14,569,931,507 from January 1, 1993 to November 30, 1993 by discounting the total amount of KRW 863 bills. The Plaintiff’s interest income from each of the bills can not be verified through the Plaintiff’s account books due to the lack of entry, etc., on the other hand, due to the lack of entry. However, with respect to the bills issued at a total of 528 bills discounted from December 2 to March 26, 1994, it was confirmed that the average discount rate was 7.71 percent by the Plaintiff’s account books, etc.

(4) In addition, the Plaintiff loaned 511,40,000 won interest income to the Nonparty listed in attached Table 2-B of the Income Calculation Table 2, as stated in the same paragraph, only in 1993.

B. Determination

(1) Determination on rental income

(가) 위 인정사실에 의하면, 원고가 1993년 귀속 임대수입으로 이미 신고한 위 금446,468,491원 외에도 금1,062,526,491원의 추가 임대수입을 얻었음을 알 수 있으나, 또한 그에 대한 필요경비로 위 ㅇㅇ빌딩의 수리비 금111,517,088원이 추가로 발생하였음도 알 수 있는바, 피고가 이를 원고의 임대수입에서 공제하지 않은 것은 위법하다.

(나) 다만, 원고 주장의 필요경비에 대한 주장 중 ㅇㅇ빌딩을 제외한 나머지 3개 빌딩의 수리비 및 기계장치 및 비품구입대에 대하여는 앞서 배척한 증거 이외에는 이를 인정할만한 증거가 없고, 위 ㅇㅇ빌딩의 수리비로 주장한 금원 중 자판기구입비 금1,100,000원과 수리후 개업식 식대 합계 금5,507,930원은 모두 필요경비로서 공제되어야 할 성질의 것이 아니므로, 이 부분에 대한 원고의 주장은 받아들이지 않는다.

(C) On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the necessary expenses additionally recognized by a member are already included in the necessary expenses already reported or examined by the plaintiff and already deducted, and that this is not in the nature that should be deducted from the revenue of the year concerned as capital expenses at one time. However, this is based on the facts acknowledged earlier, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the defendant's assertion should not be accepted.

(2) Determination on interest income through bill discount

(A) According to the above facts, from January 1, 1993 to November 30, 1993, the Plaintiff issued interest income at a discount of KRW 14,569,931,507, total amount of KRW 863 from January 1, 1993.

(B) However, it is also known that interest income from each bill at the discount rate cannot be confirmed due to the plaintiff's deficiencies in the plaintiff's account book. This constitutes a case where there is no necessary account books and documentary evidence in calculating the tax base under Article 120 of the Act and Article 169 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994; hereinafter the same) or where it is impossible to make a decision based on a preliminary investigation because there is a lack of necessary account books and documentary evidence or there is a lack of significant part or false part of it.

26. up to 26.8 of the bill discount issued by the Plaintiff, the average discount rate of 7.71% is confirmed to be 7.71%. Accordingly, the estimation of interest income through the discount rate of 14,569,931,507 won through the discount rate of 14.69,931,507 won is reasonable as the method of utilizing the income rate of the enterpriser in the immediately preceding taxable period or the parts entered in the pertinent taxable period, etc., and it is not likely that the average discount rate of 7.71% as a result of the estimation is too high as to the above average discount rate of 528 bills. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this point is without merit.

(D) Therefore, there is no illegality in the recognition of interest income by the Defendant’s additional survey on this part.

(3) Determination on interest income through loans

According to the above facts, the plaintiff's lending of money to the 1993 that he obtained interest income of KRW 511,400,000 in total, as recognized by the defendant, and the plaintiff's assertion on this part is groundless.

(4) Calculation of a reasonable amount of tax

Ultimately, the disposition of this case is erroneous in not deducting all necessary expenses in relation to the lease income. Thus, in calculating the global income tax amount for the year 1993 to be imposed on the plaintiff by deducting necessary expenses recognized earlier and calculating the rental income for the year 1993, it can be known that the tax amount is KRW 1,471,470,110, such as the statement in the case of the tax calculation table. Thus, the part of the disposition of this case in excess of the above amount is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the disposition of this case exceeding the above 1,471,460,110 won in excess of the above 1,471,460,110 won is revoked. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition and accepted it, and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit and it is so decided as