(a) Standard for calculating the market price of services serving as a tax base in trading with persons in a special relationship with the businessman; and

(b) Whether the court is obligated to calculate the amount to be fairly imposed, in cases where the estimated taxation is unlawful;

(a) In order to calculate the market price of services, which serves as the tax base for transactions with persons in a special relationship with the enterpriser under Article 13(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, the price calculated based on the price formed when the enterpriser makes a normal transaction with persons in a special relationship with the person in a special relationship with him/her, shall be determined based on the enterpriser's price. Thus, in the absence of such precedents, the price shall be determined based on the price determined based on the actual transaction, and in the absence of such precedents, the reasonable transaction price of the similar land in the neighboring and similar areas shall be determined based on the price calculated based upon the land category, location, surrounding environment, utilization status, and the individual factors

B. The burden of proving the reasonableness and validity of the estimated tax is against the tax authority, so long as the tax authority does not prove the method and content of its estimation in a lawsuit that is reasonable and reasonable, the court cannot revoke the entire amount because the estimated tax imposed by the tax authority was illegal, and the court does not ex officio impose a duty to calculate the reasonable tax amount to be imposed by finding out a reasonable and reasonable method of estimation.

(a) Article 13(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 50(1) and Article 52(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act;

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu62 Decided July 9, 1985 85Nu62 Decided July 9, 1985

[Judgment of the court below]

the director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu531 delivered on January 28, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In order to calculate the market price of services, which serves as a tax base for transactions with persons in a special relationship with the enterpriser under Article 13(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, the price formed when the enterpriser makes a normal transaction with persons in a special relationship with him shall be the basis for such price. Thus, if there is a practical example, the price shall be the basis for such price, and if there is no such example, the price shall be the basis for the price calculated taking into consideration the land category, location, surrounding environment, utilization status, appropriate transaction price of similar lands in the neighboring and similar areas, and individual factors, etc.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that, in calculating the market price of the land of this case, only the instruction and official document prescribed by the National Tax Service's established rules without any legal restraint or rationality cannot be deemed as the price formed by normal trade, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on market price assessment of service or by misunderstanding the rules of evidence as asserted.

2. The burden of proving the reasonableness and validity of the estimated tax is imposed on the defendant who is the tax authority, so long as the defendant does not prove that the method and content of his estimation in the lawsuit are reasonable and reasonable, the court is bound to revoke the whole amount of the estimated tax imposed by the defendant because the defendant was illegal, and the court does not impose ex officio the duty to calculate the reasonable tax amount to be imposed by finding out the reasonable and reasonable estimation method (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu62 delivered on July 9, 1985). In this regard, the court below's decision that completely cancelled the disposition of this case, which included the estimation method in the calculation method, is just, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misunderstanding of legal principles.

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

Justices Song Man-Ba (Presiding Justice)