Whether the disposition verified by omission of the revenue amount of the library or real estate rental business is legitimate;

In the case of inn business and real estate rental business, the amount which is deemed to be omitted by the supporting data by the head of Tong, etc. shall be appropriate.

Article 24 (Calculation of Gross Amount of Income)

Article 80 of the Income Tax Act shall be decided and corrected.

[Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17885 ( October 09, 2007)]

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, pursuant to Article 429 of the Civil Procedure Act, that the petition of appeal filed by the Plaintiff did not state any grounds for appeal and did not submit a statement of grounds for

[Seoul High Court 2006Nu27542 (Law No. 24, 2007)]

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 36,880,841 on June 7, 2005 exceeds KRW 22,975,089 among the disposition of imposition of KRW 36,880,841 on global income tax of KRW 200, and the part exceeding KRW 17,606,638 among the disposition of imposition of KRW 33,315,00 for global income tax of KRW 33,315 for year 201, exceeds KRW 11,08,114 of the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 22,252,89 for year 202, and the part exceeding KRW 167,049 of the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 20,748,50 for year 203 is revoked (the plaintiff claimed for the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 2002 according to the correction of the defendant's disposition of reduction).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation of this case is as follows, with the exception of adding Eul No. 10 and Eul No. 11 to "the grounds for recognition" among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, and as stated in the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, it refers to Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for repair: Not more than 2 Myeon 10,000.

B. On June 7, 2005, the head of ○○ Tax Office: (a) deemed the Plaintiff’s income amount as the omitted income amount less the amount reported by the Plaintiff as the revenue amount at the time of the return of value-added tax; (b) notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the totaling KRW 54,86,080 from 200 to 2004; (c) on June 7, 2005, the Defendant imposed the global income tax of KRW 36,880,840 for the year 200; (d) global income tax of KRW 33,315,140 for the year 201, global income tax of KRW 23,287,50 for the year 202, global income tax of KRW 20,748,500 for the year 203, global income tax of KRW 20 for the year 202,500 for each of the above global income tax as the global income tax amount for the year 2025 years 25.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.