appropriateness of taxation on the omission of income amount ofn and real estate rental business;

In the case of inn business and real estate rental business, the disposition imposing the comprehensive income tax by deeming the amount deposited in the passbook, etc. as the omission of income amount is appropriate.

Article 24 (Calculation of Gross Amount of Income)

Article 80 of the Income Tax Act shall be decided and corrected.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 36,80,841 on June 7, 2005 exceeds KRW 22,975,089 among the disposition of imposition of KRW 22,975,081 on global income tax of KRW 200,00, exceeding KRW 33,315,145, exceeding KRW 17,606,638 of the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 23,287,502, exceeding KRW 12,122,721 of the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 203,00,000, KRW 167,049 of the disposition of imposition of KRW 20,748,501 on global income tax of KRW 203 shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 2005, the head of ○○○ Tax Office conducted an investigation into the “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○○○○○○-dong (hereinafter referred to as the “n”), which was owned by the Plaintiff, confirmed that the Plaintiff acquired rental income of KRW 10 million per month from June 1999 to May 2001 after the Plaintiff leased the instant inn to Kim○○-dong, and that the Plaintiff acquired rental income of KRW 9 million from June 2001 to July 2004.

B. On June 7, 2005, the head of ○○○ Tax Office: (a) deemed the Plaintiff’s income amount as omitted income after deducting the amount reported by the Plaintiff as the amount of income at the time of the return of value-added tax; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of KRW 54,86,080 as the aggregate of the value-added tax from 2000 to 2004; and (c) on June 7, 2005, on the basis of the revenue amount notified by the head of ○○ Tax Office, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of KRW 36,880,840 as global income tax for the year 200, global income tax for the year 200, global income tax for 33,315,140, global income tax for the year 201, global income tax for 36,880,840, global income tax for the year 2003, global income tax for 20048,500 (hereinafter each of the instant disposition”).

Facts that there is no dispute, i.e., A6 evidence 1-20

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The instant disposition is in violation of the principle of taxation based on the ground that it had been transferred by appropriating the amount of income voluntarily calculated without specific data as if it were the actual income of the Plaintiff.

(2) The Plaintiff entrusted the operation of the instantn to Kim○○ by entrusting the operation of the instantn to a general manager, and disbursed KRW 400 to 5 million out of the monthlyn revenue to Kim○○ as operating expenses. The amount should be deducted as necessary expenses.

(b) Related statutes;

○ Calculation of gross revenue under Article 24 of the Income Tax Act

(1) The total amount of income of a resident shall be calculated on the basis of the total amount received or received during the relevant year.

○ Decision and Correction of Article 80 of the Income Tax Act

(2) If a person who makes a final return of tax base pursuant to Articles 70 through 72 or 74, falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the chief of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall correct

1. Where an omission or error exists in the contents of return;

C. Determination

(1) According to the plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff's argument is contrary to the principle of base taxation, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 4-2, and each of the plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff's argument violates the principle of base taxation, the plaintiff leased the village of this case's loan of this case from June 199 to May 2001, and the plaintiff's loan of 9 million won from June 1, 2001 to July 1, 2004. Accordingly, the defendant's deposit amount every month from the plaintiff's old account is difficult to recognize the difference between the plaintiff's deposit account's deposit money and the amount reported to the plaintiff's deposit account from Kim ○-O and the amount reported to the defendant as revenue related to the operation of this case's loan of this case's lease of this case's account. Thus, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff's loan of this case's non-party's money transaction of this case's non-party.

(2) Next, the Plaintiff asserted that the above amount should be deducted as necessary expenses since it was spent to Kim○○ every month for operating expenses of 400 to 5 million won in relation to the operation of the instantn. However, according to the statement 1-3 of the evidence No. 6, the Plaintiff reported and paid the global income tax for 200 to 200 to 200 and 2002 on the basis that there is no relevant account book and documentary evidence. Accordingly, at the time of the instant disposition, the Defendant calculated the amount of income by multiplying the amount of income by the standard income rate by business type (202, 2001) or simple expense rate (202) by the amount of income for 200 to 200 to 300, and this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not reasonable, and there is no reason to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid the amount of income to 00,000 witness on the ground that the Plaintiff reported the additional amount of income tax for 2003 to 2003.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.