(a) the requirements and legality of the estimated taxation;

B. Whether it is necessary to conduct an on-site investigation in case of estimated taxation

(c) Whether the partner who received the decision of estimation is appropriate for the estimated taxation by the method of partner's competence as the person in charge; and

(a) The burden of proof of rationality and feasibility shall be borne by the tax authorities, only in cases where it is not possible to use the estimation method because it is impossible to investigate the actual amount of estimation, and the method and content of the estimation should be reasonable and reasonable to reflect the actual amount of income nearest to the truth, and where the estimation method and content are disputed whether it is legitimate or not.

B. The tax authority should make a decision based on the method of estimated investigation only when it cannot determine the tax base and the amount of tax, even if the tax authority pointed out the illegality of all documents, etc. presented by the taxpayer and received new materials and conducted a field investigation after the year.

C. One of the estimation method is the method of determining the amount of income in accordance with the balance with other businesses of the same business type where the entry is deemed to be the most accurate, so in case where there is no other business operator facing balance, and where the estimation is made due to the lack of entry, the method of determining the amount of income in accordance with the estimation is not clear and reasonable.

Article 120 of the Income Tax Act, Article 159(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu36 delivered on September 14, 1982, 82Nu39 delivered on September 28, 1982, 79Nu408 delivered on March 11, 1980, 80Nu392 delivered on December 22, 1981, 79Nu307 delivered on January 15, 1980, 79Nu398 delivered on November 11, 1980

Plaintiff

Head of Mapo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu207 delivered on April 26, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence of the city in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 200 won and reported the total income in 1980 by the plaintiff who operated the general and members in the name of Seongbuk-gu 4, 200 won, and the defendant denied the plaintiff's total income in 1980 by reason of life book, underreporting, etc., and estimated the plaintiff's total income in 58,00,000 won by the method of partner's right, and imposes 5,371,682 won and 1,104,096 won as global income tax in 1980 to the plaintiff on August 16, 1980 by applying the income standard rate of the general and member's 4,000 won and 7,00 won as global income tax in 40,000 won and 7,00 won as global income tax in 4,000 won and 18,000 won as global income tax in advance.

On the other hand, the estimated taxation under Article 120 of the Income Tax Act is exceptionally acknowledged in cases where there is no book and documentary evidence of a taxpayer who serves as the basis for the determination of a tax base and amount of tax, or where it is impossible to use it by the method of the basis of the taxation because the details are incomplete or false. Thus, the estimated taxation is limited to cases where it is inevitable to use by the method of the estimation because it is impossible to investigate the actual amount of tax, as well as to cases where it is reasonable and reasonable to reflect the actual amount of income near the truth, and where the method and contents of the estimation are disputed, the burden of proving the legitimacy and validity shall be borne by the defendant who is the tax authority (see Supreme Court Decisions 82Nu36 delivered on September 14, 1982 and 82Nu39 delivered on September 28,

Therefore, the tax authority shall make a decision based on the estimation investigation only when it is impossible to determine the tax base and tax amount of the documents presented by the taxpayer after making an on-site investigation with a new data presentation (see Supreme Court Decision 79Nu408, Mar. 11, 1980; 79Nu408, Nov. 11, 1980; 201Nu392, Dec. 22, 1981; 201Nu307, Nov. 11, 1980; 201Nu398, Nov. 11, 1980; 201Nu398, Nov. 11, 1980; 201Nu398, Nov. 11, 201; 201Nu400, etc.). The decision of the court below is without merit by misapprehending the legal principles as to the presumption of facts and exercise of right as a legitimate party.

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)