(a) The case holding that a lawsuit is illegal due to a failure to go through the procedure of a prior trial on the imposition of income tax only after having gone through the procedure for the notice of change in income amount;

(b) The case where it is deemed that the corporate tax base and tax amount meet the estimation requirements due to omission in return of revenue amount;

C. Whether the tax base can be determined by mixing the on-site investigation and the estimated investigation where the taxable object is a single item only for multiple items of sales revenue (negative)

A. In filing the lawsuit in this case after taking the procedure of the preceding trial on the notice of change in the income amount of Class A employment income, if the plaintiff changed the lawsuit to seek the revocation of the tax disposition such as Class A employment income after taking the subject of the notice of change in the above income amount, the plaintiff shall be deemed not to have gone through the legitimate preceding trial procedure as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes with respect to the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the tax disposition such as Class A employment income tax and the defense tax. Even though there was a tax disposition such as Class A employment income tax in this case during the examination of the notice of change in the income amount, even though there was a legitimate procedure of the preceding trial regarding the above tax disposition, or the lawsuit seeking the revocation of Class

B. The Plaintiff omitted filing a return and omitted entry of KRW 5,456,624,931 in the business year 1982, 10.22% of the total amount of the returned revenues. The Plaintiff purchased raw materials equivalent to KRW 85,938,30 and did not receive a tax invoice, and was subject to criminal punishment for failing to receive a tax invoice. With respect to the portion of the sales omitted in filing a return, the manufacturer did not keep the tax invoice. From 1979 to 1981, if the Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff paid KRW 179,70,000 and KRW 5,870,000 in the cost of technical guidance and development expenses, warehouse and production facilities during the period from 1979 to 1981, but did not have any necessary account books or other documentary evidence in calculating the amount of the income, or if the tax authority had no other important or false way to clarify the amount of the income, and thus, the Plaintiff could be deemed to fall under Article 93(1)1 of the Corporate Tax Act.

C. As for a single taxable object under the Corporate Tax Act, a single tax base cannot be determined by mixing the on-site investigation and the estimated investigation, barring special circumstances, the item of sales revenue is only multiple, and if the taxable object is a single, it is necessary to calculate the amount of income by estimation for the whole sales revenue, and it is impossible to separately determine the tax base by the method of on-site investigation as to the sales revenue

A. Article 18(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 32(3) of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 93 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu589 delivered on June 26, 1984 (Gong1984, 1355). Supreme Court Decision 84Nu216 delivered on March 25, 1986 (Gong1986, 712)

Daelim Gas Co., Ltd.

head of Dongjak-gu Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu82 delivered on April 14, 1988

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the facts established by the court below as to the part of the claim for the revocation of the disposition of imposition of Class A earned income tax and its defense tax belonging to the year 1982, the plaintiff's assertion that the above disposition was made on February 7, 1984 is not acknowledged. The defendant did not examine and decide the above imposition of tax on the plaintiff as of March 17, 1984, but there is no evidence to find that the tax amount was different from the plaintiff's assertion and that it had gone through the pre-trial procedure under the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, there is no evidence to find that the plaintiff had gone through the original procedure. However, in addition to the disposition of imposition of corporate tax on February 7, 1984 and the notice of change in the income amount of Class A earned income tax (which was recognized as the representative director of the plaintiff company), the plaintiff filed a request for the examination on the above Class A earned income tax and its imposition, and it was also subject to the above notice of change in the income amount. In light of the records, the fact finding of the court below is justified.

In addition, the records revealed that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on January 24, 1985, the plaintiff changed the lawsuit to seek the revocation of the disposition imposing Gap's employment income tax and its defense tax only after the notice of change in the above income amount was given to the plaintiff (the complaint) during the proceedings of the court below (the application for change of claim, etc. filed on January 30, 1986 and October 20, 1987). Thus, with respect to the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition imposing Gap's employment income tax and its defense tax, the plaintiff did not go through the legitimate pre-trial procedure as stipulated in the Framework Act on National Taxes as to the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition imposing Gap's employment income tax in this case and its defense tax in this case, even though there was the defendant's taxation disposition such as Gap's employment income tax in this case during the examination of the notice of change in income amount, it cannot be said that the above taxation disposition was legitimate in this fact, or the lawsuit seeking the revocation of Gap's employment income tax in this case was lawful.

Therefore, under such purport, the judgment of the court below that deemed this part of the lawsuit by the plaintiff to be unlawful is justifiable, and the argument of the lawsuit that criticizes the judgment of the court below is not acceptable from the opposite standpoint, and it is groundless

With respect to the second ground:

According to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff was subject to criminal punishment for failing to obtain tax invoices by omitting filing a return on the amount of KRW 557,904,55 won in the business year of 1982 and omitting filing a return on the amount of KRW 5,456,624,931 won in total, and omitting filing a return on the amount of KRW 85,938,330 in total, while purchasing raw materials for the manufacture of burners equivalent to KRW 85,938,330 in total, and failing to receive a tax invoice. For the portion of the returned sales collected by the defendant, the manufacturer did not keep records on the amount of the returned sales, and between 1979 and 1981, the amount of KRW 179,70,000 in total, and KRW 5,870,000 in total and the amount of KRW 5,00 in total, if the facts were the same, it shall be deemed that there is no other necessary account books or other necessary income in calculating the amount, or no other important evidence.

The Supreme Court Decision (Law No. 82Nu118 delivered on June 28, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 79Nu408 delivered on March 11, 1980) is not appropriate for this case.

In addition, as for a single taxable object under the Corporate Tax Act, the tax base cannot be determined by mixing the on-site investigation and the estimated investigation (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu216, Mar. 25, 1986). In such a case, the reported sales amount shall be calculated by the method of the on-site investigation and the amount of income shall not be calculated separately by the method of the estimated investigation only for the omission in filing a return. According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, in this case, the items of sales revenue are only multiple items and the subject of taxation are single. In such a case, it is necessary to calculate the amount of income by the method of estimation for the total sales revenue reported by the plaintiff, and it is impossible

In addition, the Supreme Court Decision (Law No. 79Nu371 delivered on March 25, 1980) on the party members of the theory is not appropriate in this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no reason to criticize the judgment of the court below.

2. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records and records, the court below rejected Eul evidence Nos. 17-1 (written confirmation), Eul evidence Nos. 27-1 (written confirmation), and 27-1 (written confirmations), and rejected the fact that the plaintiff denied the sale of the burners as stated in the attached Form of the judgment below, and accepted the disposition that recognized the opposing facts, and it cannot be said that such evidence preparation and fact-finding of the court below exceeded the limit of the rules of evidence, and it cannot be said that the court below adopted the evidence Nos. 12 (written evidence) and evidence Nos. 17-2 (written statement of omission) of Eul's theory and did not recognize the fact that the burners were sold, like the theory of lawsuit, or there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

Therefore, there is no reason to criticize the lower court's exclusive right.

3. Therefore, all appeals 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 Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)