If the amount of sales tax base determined by estimation and the amount of sales tax base for other goods is recognized;

Although the business tax base provided for in Article 21 of the former Business Tax Act and the goods tax base provided for in Article 2 of the former Goods Tax Act for the plaintiff who does not engage in any business other than the mobilephone manufacturing business, it is logically identical to the business tax base provided for in Article 2 of the former Goods Tax Act, the plaintiff cannot claim that the tax base amount is unreasonable in seeking the cancellation of the disposition of imposing the goods tax on the plaintiff by calculating the business tax base amount.

Article 2 of the former Goods Tax Act, Article 21 of the former Business Tax Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

The head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu293 delivered on January 20, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers are examined.

With respect to Section 1:

If the Plaintiff did not engage in any business other than the business of the mobilephone manufacturing at the first half of July 197, the total sales price of the mobilephone, during that period, becomes the business tax base under Article 21 of the former Business Tax Act (amended by Act No. 315, Jul. 1, 1977) and at the same time becomes the business tax base under Article 2 of the former Business Tax Act (amended by Act No. 320, Jul. 1, 1977). Thus, the above two tax base amounts are logically identical to the theory of the lawsuit. However, the court below's determination to the same effect that the business base amount during the above period cannot be asserted as the grounds for revoking the disposition of the goods tax solely on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not claim the amount of the decision of the estimated tax base amount and the amount of the tax base amount were determined as the tax base amount of the goods tax and imposed the goods tax in this case cannot be accepted.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the court below's reasoning, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff was employed as an employee of other company on Apr. 1977 after ordering the building owner to use the building as a place of business on December 12, 1976 and actually discontinued the business of manufacturing phiphones. In light of these facts, the court below held that the tax disposition of this case was unlawful on the premise that the plaintiff continued to manufacture phiphones even during the first half of the half of the year on August 31 of the same year on the ground that the plaintiff did not receive a certificate of duty payment of goods from the defendant on Apr. 197 and sold phiphones equivalent to 802,00 won, and that the plaintiff reported the suspension of business on Aug. 31 of the same year.

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

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)