(a) If there is a dispute over the difference in the amount of tax, the criteria for determining whether the taxation is unlawful;

B. The subject matter of the review of the revocation lawsuit

A. In a case where there is a dispute over the difference of the tax amount recognized in the taxation disposition, whether the taxation disposition is unlawful or not shall be determined by whether the tax amount exceeds the reasonable tax amount.

B. Since a lawsuit seeking revocation of a taxation disposition is based on the substantive and procedural illegality of the taxation disposition, the subject matter to be deliberated should be understood as the existence of the taxable value decided by the tax authority. Thus, the litigant may assert that the determination of the legality of the taxation disposition is based on all the materials submitted up to the closing date of argument in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the taxation disposition.

Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

(a) Supreme Court Decision 78Nu345 delivered on October 14, 1980; 84Nu2,84Nu106,84Nu130 delivered on September 25, 1984; 81Nu341 delivered on October 12, 1982

[Defendant-Appellant] Cho Dongdong-dong, Inc., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

The superintendent of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu658 delivered on July 19, 1984 (Supreme Court Decision 83Nu118 delivered on June 28, 1983)

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. On the first ground of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that all the financial receipts and disbursements of the plaintiff company were prepared first of all every day under the preceding table, such as cash receipts and disbursements, cash substitution, etc., and then prepared a daily account book, and thereby prepared supplementary account books such as bank receipts and disbursements, credit sales ledger, assets and liabilities book, manufacturing expenses, and general management expenses book. The general account book was prepared by the head of the general account book and kept for each business year of this case. On October 21, 1977, the plaintiff company was bankrupt due to the bankruptcy, and it was without merit due to the plaintiff company's bankruptcy, and the total account books were prepared for the above 7th of the 197th of the 197th of the 197th of the 197 year and the 197th of the 197th of the 197 business year and the 197th of the 1978 business year and the 197th of the 1978 business year and the 10th of the 10th of the 3th of the 2nd of the above evidence.

2. As to the second ground of appeal, in a case where there is a dispute over the difference in the tax amount recognized in the taxation disposition, whether the taxation disposition is unlawful or not shall be determined on the basis of whether the tax amount exceeds the reasonable tax amount, and on the other hand, since the lawsuit seeking revocation of the taxation disposition is the substantive and procedural illegality of the taxation disposition, it shall be determined as the reason for revocation. Thus, the subject of review shall be determined as the existence of the taxable value determined by the taxation authority. Thus, the litigants can assert the legitimacy of the taxation disposition by submitting all the materials concerning the existence and scope of the tax base amount, etc. and by the materials submitted up until the closing of argument in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the taxation disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 78Nu345, Oct. 14, 1980; 84Nu842, 84Nu106,

Therefore, although the court below did not submit to the defendant at the time of the disposition of this case, it was just that the court below recognized that the above Gap evidence Nos. 6-1 through No. 65-10 submitted to the court of the court below was able to conduct an on-site investigation of corporate tax base by evidence such as evidence Nos. 6-1 through No. 65-10 submitted to the court of the court below

3. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below accepted the defendant's actual tax base return for 1977.1-12.3 of the business year 197 and 1978.3 of the plaintiff's actual tax base return for 197.3 of the tax base return for 197.3 of the tax base return and 197.3 of the tax base return for 197.3 of the tax base return for 197.3 of the tax base return for 197.3 of the tax base return and 97.3 of the tax base return for 197.7 of the tax base return for 197.3 of the tax base return and 197.3 of the tax base return for 197.7 of the tax base return and 197.3 of the tax base return for 197.7 of the tax base return return and 197.7 of the tax base return for 197.3 of the tax base return return, 197.3 of the plaintiff's revenue amount for 197.7.3

However, in a case where there is a dispute over the difference of the tax amount recognized in the taxation disposition, whether the taxation disposition is unlawful should be determined by the party's assertion that the tax amount exceeds the legitimate tax amount (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu341, Oct. 12, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu393, Jan. 22, 1985). Meanwhile, according to the records, the court below's determination that the tax amount by the taxation disposition in this case is less than the legitimate tax amount to be calculated by the on-site investigation method, together with the above assertion that the tax amount by the on-site investigation method is less than the legitimate tax amount to be calculated by the on-site investigation method, and the court below should not revoke the taxation disposition in this case even if it is recognized that the tax amount exceeds the legitimate tax amount by the illegal estimation method, and if it is recognized that the tax amount exceeds the legitimate tax amount by the defendant, the court below's decision should be revoked due to the lack of sufficient deliberation and determination of the tax amount in this case.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)