Park Sang-hoon

Head of the Do Tax Office

November 26, 1981

The disposition imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on May 17, 1980 KRW 716,424 and KRW 70,504 of the defense tax shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

Comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of evidence No. 2-1 (Notice of Decision), 2 (Notice of Decision), 3 (Written Decision), 4 (Written Confirmation), 11, Gap evidence No. 12 (Payment in Money), 13 (Purchase), Gap evidence No. 14, 15, 16-1 through 33 (Account for Import), Gap evidence No. 6 (Account for Import), and the whole purport of pleading of the above witness's testimony, the plaintiff deducted the amount of income tax from 70, 70, 70, 70, 70, 70, 70, 70, 40, 70, 70, 70, 70, 70, 700, 70, 70, 40, 70, 306, 40, 70, 197, 198, 30, 40, 197, 40, 197, 197

The defendant recognized the plaintiff's total revenue amount as KRW 107,058,134 as 107,00,000,000 as 10,453,5333 won in accordance with the amount of income statement, but there is no credibility of the purchase amount as 100,453,533 won in the total purchase amount. Since the purchase sale place and other relevant documents are not reliable, there is no reason for the determination of the additional tax amount under Article 120 of the Income Tax Act and Article 169 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 169 (1) of the same Act, it is recognized as 107,147,384 won in the amount of income, and then 5,357,369 won in the amount of income calculated as 5,000,000 won in the amount of income statement, and then deducted the tax base amount as 4,397,369,000 won in the amount of income tax, 27181,781,28800 won in the amount in unfaithful.

However, the Plaintiff does not regularly purchase and sell goods with a certain store like the general wholesale market, but sells mainly at the designated feed factory from fishermen in the coast and island without a certain store, and thus, it is not possible to issue a tax invoice for each purchase whenever purchasing miscellaneous goods. However, it can be recognized that the account books and tax invoices, which are evidential documents for purchase, are kept or kept in good faith, and there is no evidence to determine the above recognition.

According to the above facts, in light of the nature and scale of the business operated by the plaintiff, it is possible to sufficiently conduct an on-site investigation by considering its degree of account books and documentary evidence, and as long as there is no clear objective reason that the account books and documentary evidence are false or insufficient, it is erroneous for the defendant to make an on-site investigation decision without recourse to the on-site investigation decision and to make

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of this taxation disposition is justified, and therefore, the lawsuit cost is assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

December 17, 1981

Judges Park Jong-chul(Presiding Judge)