beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. According to Article 80 (3) of the Income Tax Act, where the head of a regional tax office or the head of a regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment determines or revises the tax base and amount of tax in the relevant taxable period pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2), he/she shall determine or correct them based on the account books and other evidentiary documents: Provided, That where it is impossible to calculate the amount of income by means
The estimated taxation under the Income Tax Act is recognized only when there is no account books or evidentiary documents of a taxpayer who serves as the basis for the amount of income or the determination of tax base, or when it is impossible to conduct a field investigation due to lack of details or false details. Therefore, the estimated taxation may not be made if there
In addition, the litigant can claim the legitimacy of the taxation disposition by submitting all the data until the closing of argument in the revocation lawsuit and based on the data submitted up to that time.
Therefore, even if the tax authority imposed estimated taxation due to deficiencies of account books, etc. at the time of the disposition, when the account books or other documentary evidence have expired in the lawsuit for cancellation of the disposition, the tax authority should determine the amount of income or tax base by means of on-site investigation
(See Supreme Court Decision 86Nu516 delivered on December 9, 1986, etc.). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment reveals the following facts. A.
From October 12, 2005 to April 21, 2011, the Plaintiff operated an entertainment drinking club (hereinafter “instant entertainment drinking club”) as indicated in the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant entertainment drinking club”).
B. The Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the entertainment tavern of this case, and conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff.