[1] The case holding that it is reasonable and reasonable to estimate the amount of income of beauty art rooms based on the purchase amount of beauty art materials during a certain period of time in which the amount of income is confirmed, according to the ratio of expenses between the amount of income for a certain period of time and the purchase amount of beauty art materials

[2] The case holding that it is lawful to regard the general use of old and old and old and old and new and old as different services, and to determine the amount of income differently

[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that it is reasonable and reasonable by the tax authority as provided in Article 69 (1) 5 or 4 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1471 of Dec. 31, 1994) and subparagraph 4 (b) of Article 69 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1471 of Dec. 31, 1994) where a person who supplies beauty service was supplied exclusively with beauty materials necessary for the supply of general beauty service from a specific company and the purchase amount of such materials is similar to that of the beauty service, and there is a relation between the beauty service material and the beauty service material in the case of the beauty service where the person who supplies the above beauty service is supplied with no seasonal influence and the revenue amount is proportional to the cosmetic material in the case of the beauty service where the account book on the revenue amount of the person who supplies the above beauty service was calculated for the regular beauty service and the purchase amount of the beauty service material supplied by the company for which is not confirmed

[2] The case holding that if the first, second and fourth floors of a building owned by the taxpayer are classified into general available rooms, and the third and fourth floors are classified into new and old and old and old and separate stores, and account books are separated into general available ones and new and old and old and separate ones, and keep only all account books concerning new and old and old and new and old businesses among them, and if most of the revenues from new and old and old and new and old businesses are used by new and old and old businesses, and revenues from new and old businesses are only part of those resulting from new and old businesses, it is legitimate for the tax authorities to determine the amount of revenues from the supply of new and old services as the estimated method, and the amount of revenues from the supply of new and old businesses is determined by the method of field investigation

[1] Article 21 (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5032 of Dec. 29, 1995), Article 69 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14471 of Dec. 31, 1994) / [2] Article 21 (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5032 of Dec. 29, 1995), Article 69 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14471 of Dec. 31, 1994)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 85Nu495 decided Dec. 10, 1985 (Gong1986, 261) Supreme Court Decision 88Nu4065 decided Mar. 14, 1989 (Gong1989, 625) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu15202 decided Jul. 30, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2722)

Plaintiff

Head of Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 95Gu6268 delivered on September 20, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The judgment of the court below on the point that the plaintiff points out the theory (the fact that the plaintiff was exclusively supplied with and used the beauty art materials necessary for the supply of general beauty services from the non-party famous Cosmetics Co., Ltd.) is acceptable in light of the records and relevant evidence, and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of law by misconception of facts in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In imposing estimated tax, the method and content of the estimation must be reasonable and reasonable (see Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu495, Dec. 10, 1985; 94Nu15202, Jul. 30, 1996; 94Nu15202, Feb. 30, 1996; etc.). As determined by the court below, the facts were exclusively supplied with cosmetic materials necessary for the supply of general-use services by the above non-party company as determined by the court below, and the purchase amount is not considerably changed during each taxable period, as well as the size and business situation of the above period are similar, and the amount of the cosmetic materials are not affected by season, and are proportional to the cosmetic materials which are supplied for general-use use services, if the defendant has a reasonable and reasonable relation between the cosmetic materials and the amount of the cosmetic materials which are supplied for general-use use services, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the purchase ratio of No. 1497, supra. 16, the purchase rate of the 94.

In addition, according to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff's 1, 2, 3, and 4 are divided into general beauty service rooms, 3, and 4 are classified into a new installment rental store and a new installment shop, and entered separate account books as well as a new installment loan and a new installment business, and keep only all account books as to new installment loan and a new installment business among them. According to the records, most of the income from new installment loan and a new installment loan are caused by new installment loan, and it is extremely limited to that from new installment loan. Accordingly, if the facts are identical, the defendant's income from the supply of new installment service is deemed to be a different service, and the amount of income from the supply of new installment service shall be determined by the field investigation method, and the decision of the court below to the same purport is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the estimation method, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the estimation method.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)