(a) Whether the method of examining and determining the gross income amount and tax base under the Income Tax Act is the same as those for the income tax;

(b) Whether the revocation of the imposition disposition of the income tax is impossible, even though there is any defect in the examination of the total income amount concerning the real estate income when the imposition disposition of the business tax on the real estate business is confirmed;

A. The total amount of income and the tax base under the Income Tax Act differ from the number, which serves as the basis for calculating the amount of tax, or both, depending on which the basis for calculating the amount of tax is different, and the method of investigation ought to be separately determined depending on which one of the statutory grounds falls, and the two are not necessarily required to be investigated by the same method. Therefore, if there are evidentiary documents that can calculate the amount of gross income even in cases where the tax base is determined by the method of estimating the amount of tax base on the basis of the calculation of the amount of tax, the

(b) The imposition of a business tax on real estate business and the imposition of an income tax on real estate income are separate administrative dispositions different from each other, and thus, if the imposition of a business tax on real estate business on which the business tax is imposed becomes final and conclusive but there is any defect in the investigation into the total income amount of real estate income, it may seek revocation of such imposition on the grounds that the total income amount is unreasonable.

(a) Articles 120 and 118 of the Income Tax Act;

Supreme Court Decision 81Da159 delivered on February 9, 1982, 79Nu294 delivered on May 27, 1980

Plaintiff

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu191 delivered on February 5, 1980

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal concerning the dismissed portion of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the fact that the plaintiff did not keep and maintain the account books under Article 184 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3015, Dec. 19, 1977; hereinafter the same shall apply) that could calculate the amount of real estate income generated in the year 1977 from the building owned by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff himself did not calculate the amount corresponding to the total amount in the report of global income tax base in the corresponding year, and reported the amount calculated by applying the income standard rate set by the government to the total amount of income amount, which is the estimation method, as the tax base amount, because he did not calculate the amount corresponding to the total amount of income in the report of global income tax base in the corresponding year. Therefore, the court below affirmed the defendant's determination of the total amount of

However, according to the records, the real estate income of this case is related to the revenues from the lease or lease of one building owned by the plaintiff, and its matters are relatively simple, and it can be easily calculated by the evidence Nos. 6- 1,2,7-2, 8-2, 9-2, 10-2, 11-1 through 13 (each lease or monthly rent contract) which the plaintiff submitted, and the total amount of income of this case can not be determined based on the evidence Nos. 114 of the above Act (see Supreme Court Decision 80Nu422, Feb. 9, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 80Nu433, Nov. 25, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 80Nu433, Nov. 25, 1980).

Nevertheless, there is an error of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the decision of estimation, which determined that the court below, just on the grounds stated in its reasoning, that there was a ground for the determination of total amount of real estate income of the plaintiff, and therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be exempted from reversal on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer.

Article 114 of the Income Tax Act and Article 159 (1) 4 and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 8786, Dec. 30, 197; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that if the total amount of income is investigated and determined as real estate business under the Business Tax Act which imposes business tax, the tax base amount of the business tax determined as unnecessary shall be considered as the total amount of income of real estate in the business year concerned (see Supreme Court Decision 79Nu294, May 27, 1980). However, it is a separate administrative disposition different from each item of taxation and taxation basis of the income tax, and the defendant's overall investigation and determination of the income tax of this case are defective, it cannot be asserted that the decision on the imposition of income tax of this case is unreasonable, separate from the procedure for objection to the imposition of income tax, and it cannot be asserted that the decision on the imposition of the income tax of this case becomes final and conclusive.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff is reversed and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the court below for a new trial and determination. The defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to the dismissed part are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)