In the final return on the tax base of income tax, whether the tax base and amount of tax can be corrected based on the taxation data notified by other tax authorities where the necessary expenses reported are excessive by including necessary expenses for processing.

Article 119(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990), Articles 167(1) and 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, even if the necessary expenses reported by appropriating the necessary expenses for processing in the final return of income tax pursuant to Article 119(1) of the same Act were excessive, the necessary expenses reported by appropriating the necessary expenses for processing shall not be corrected by adding the income amount to the processing expenses confirmed by the taxation data notified by other tax authorities, unless it was included in the details of the report, and it was

Article 119(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990); Articles 167(1) and 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu348 delivered on March 24, 1987 (Gong1987,745) 88Nu4010 delivered on May 9, 1989 (Gong1989,914) 89Nu1766 delivered on August 8, 1989 (Gong1989,1384)

Plaintiff

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu21638 delivered on January 29, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

The court below held that the tax disposition in this case, which adjusted the tax base and tax amount by the original written investigation decision based on the above taxation data, is unlawful, even though the plaintiff counteds excessive necessary expenses in the final return of income tax pursuant to Article 119 (1) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990), and Articles 167 (1) and 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the necessary expenses reported by appropriating the processed necessary expenses in the final return of income tax pursuant to Article 168 of the same Act, was included in the contents of the report, and the processed expenses confirmed by the taxation data notified by other tax authorities cannot be corrected in addition to the income amount, unless the tax base and tax amount are formally incomplete or erroneous. In light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above judgment of the court below is just and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the lawsuit theory or the incomplete deliberation and the misapprehension of legal principles.

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-man (Presiding Justice)