(a) Whether the gross income amount and the tax base and tax amount shall be determined and determined in the same manner (negative);

(b) Whether the loss, etc. is deducted from the amount of income determined by estimation by multiplying the income standard ratio (negative);

A. The issue of how to determine and determine the tax base, tax amount, and total amount of income by any method ought to be determined individually according to what constitutes one of the statutory grounds for the investigation method, and the two methods are not necessarily to be determined and determined by the same method. Therefore, the total amount of income is calculated by multiplying the income standard rate on the ground that there is no books and documentary evidence necessary for calculating the tax base, and the calculation of the amount of income is not unlawful by calculating the amount of income by the income standard rate and making

B. If the amount of income is calculated by multiplying the total amount of income by the standard rate of income, the amount of income calculated by deducting the loss without any provision from this.

(a) Articles 114-2 and 118 of the Income Tax Act; Article 120 of the Income Tax Act; Article 31 of the Corporate Tax Act;

Supreme Court Decision 67Nu57 Decided June 20, 1967; 74Nu66 Decided May 14, 197; 79Nu228 Decided February 23, 1980

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of the tax office of Cheongyang

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu65 delivered on April 8, 1981

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. The plaintiff's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

Since the provisions of Articles 117 through 120 of the Income Tax Act concerning the assessment and determination method of tax base and tax amount, Article 164 through 169 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act merely applies mutatis mutandis to the investigation of total income under Article 114-2 (2) of the Income Tax Act, Article 159 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the issue of how to determine and determine the tax base and tax amount and the total income amount by any method shall be determined separately according to what constitutes the statutory grounds for such investigation and determination method, and the two cases shall not be decided by the same method. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the determination that the court below erred in the determination of the tax base and tax amount by 907, 295, 300 won on the ground that there is no evidence supporting the remaining tax base and evidential documents for the calculation of the tax base and tax amount.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff's assertion that the total income amount of 1979 as decided by the defendant includes the transaction between ○○○ Agriculture, which is not the plaintiff's revenue but the transaction between the non-party 1 and the plaintiff's total income amount is in violation of the principle of substantial taxation, shall be acknowledged as the plaintiff's total income amount of 907,295,300 won as decided by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to support this, and it is hard to find that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the plaintiff's total income amount of 1970,000 won since the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff purchased goods using the name of ○○○ Agriculture, which is not the plaintiff's revenue amount of 1979, but the plaintiff's total income amount of 000,0000 won, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the plaintiff's total income amount of 9,000,000.

The essay is groundless.

With respect to the third point:

In addition, the court below held that the plaintiff suffered special loss of KRW 123,060,00 in total due to the cancellation of the contract for purchase of 189,260,000 in aggregate, including the amount of 189,260,000 won from the amount of income calculated by deducting all expenses from the amount of income calculated by the standard rate of income to the amount of total income, including all expenses required for the income due to the type of business and the characteristics of the company in the calculation of the plaintiff's assertion that the amount of income should be deducted from the amount of income determined by the estimation investigation. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the amount of income calculated by deducting all expenses from the amount of income calculated by the standard rate of income to the amount of income, which cannot again be determined by deducting the amount of 103,060,000 won from the amount of income to the amount of income, and therefore, it cannot be determined again on the basis that there is no ground to deduct the above amount as alleged by the plaintiff.

2. The defendant litigant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s gross income was estimated to be KRW 50,00,000 as the Plaintiff did not present books and documentary evidence in 1978 and then notified the Defendant who is the head of the Plaintiff’s place of residence of the estimated amount of KRW 35,750,00 by multiplying the amount of income by the standard income rate, and that the Plaintiff filed a final return of tax base as the content of the Plaintiff’s notification. However, the lower court’s determination on the Plaintiff’s business was justifiable in that it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the global income tax base for 193,576,373 won without distinguishing the amount of income for 197 years from July 31, 1976 to December 31, 1978, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s tax base and documentary evidence for 197 as well as the amount of income for 197 years, which was written by Nonparty 1’s head of the competent tax office and the Plaintiff’s business.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)