(a) Presumption history of the tax invoice issued to a third party;

(b) Where it is possible to levy estimated taxes by the standard rate of income;

A. In light of the purport of Articles 16(1) and 22(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, if an entrepreneur issues a tax invoice and issues it to a third party, it shall be deemed that there was a supply of goods or services, such as the entries in the tax invoice, unless there exist any special reasons such as false preparation.

(b) The estimated tax based on the standard rate of income is exceptionally acknowledged in a case where there is no tax base and the account books and documentary evidence of the taxpayer, which form the basis for the determination of the tax amount, or where it is not possible to impose tax by the basis of the taxation because the contents are incomplete or false, so it is impossible to investigate the actual amount and it

(a) Articles 16(1)1 and 22(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 32(3) of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 93(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu28 delivered on March 26, 1985

limited partnership company, Dong Young Transportation Attorney Labor-at-law, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Head of tax office

Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu231 delivered on August 22, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the non-party, who was the full-time representative of the plaintiff corporation, made a false tax invoice of KRW 6,900,00 which was 37,719,100 for the year 1981 and which was 16,632,100 for the plaintiff's actual transaction and KRW 14,187,00 for the remainder of KRW 59,80 for the year 1982, and KRW 2,210,00 for the plaintiff's actual transaction, and KRW 47,283,770 for the six tax invoices which were revealed to have been prepared without a false fact that the non-party, who was the full-time representative of the plaintiff corporation, was the actual transaction of KRW 16,632,100 for the plaintiff's actual transaction, and that there was no evidence that the remaining amount was 300,000 for each actual transaction except for the above amount of KRW 51,283,70 for the above tax invoice.

According to Article 16(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, where an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods or services, the obligation to deliver a tax invoice to the supplier, and Article 22(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that an entrepreneur who fails to deliver a tax invoice shall add additional taxes to the entrepreneur. In light of the purport of such provisions, if the entrepreneur issues a tax invoice and issues it to a third party, it shall be deemed that there was a supply of goods or services, such as the entries in the tax invoice, unless there are special reasons such as the fraudulent preparation.

Therefore, the above measures of the court below are just in accordance with this opinion, and the records are reviewed, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the burden of proof in judging the value of evidence, or in the misapprehension of the experience and logic.

(2) On the second ground for appeal:

The estimated tax based on the standard rate of income is exceptionally acknowledged in cases where there is no taxpayer's account books and documentary evidence, which are the basis for the determination of the tax base and the amount of tax, or where it is not possible to impose tax by the basis of the taxation because the contents of the estimated tax are incomplete or false, it is limited to cases where it is impossible to investigate the actual amount and it is impossible to do so (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu28, Mar. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as long as it is possible to calculate the amount of tax by field investigation based on the account books and documentary evidence submitted by the plaintiff foundation, the court below judged that the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful, and calculated each tax amount based on the actual sales for each business year of the plaintiff foundation by the method of field investigation. This decision of the court below is just and a disposition of an on-site investigation is eventually unfavorable to taxpayers, and its conclusion cannot be different, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of calculating the amount of tax base as pointed out in the judgment of the court below.

(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.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)