(a) Requirements for determining estimated value-added tax;

(b) The case judged that the calculation of the sales of the beauty art room by the method of partner authority was erroneous; and

(a) In the case of determining the tax base of value-added tax and its amount by the estimation method, it shall be determined only when there are the estimation reasons under each subparagraph of Article 21(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act on the basis of the most reasonable and reasonable basis, and in the case where the taxpayer shows that all the evidential documents presented by him in filing a voluntary return of value-added tax and paying the value-added tax are not reliable, it shall be determined by the estimation method only when the taxpayer is unable to make the tax base

B. In the same business place as beauty art room, the reputation, technology, location, etc. of the business place, other than the objective elements such as the number, size, size, unit price of beauty art, etc., shall be important elements of transaction. Thus, since there are similar factors in the objective element, only if there is no reason to lower the amount of income, the sales of the business place shall not be determined to be equal to that of its partners.

(b)Article 21(b) of the Value-Added Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu788 delivered on February 25, 1986

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Central Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu150 decided Oct. 22, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below ordered 2,29,010 won of value-added tax calculated by adding the total sales during the above taxable period to 44,402,728 won, based on the account books kept and kept by the business operator operating 20,00,000,000 won for the above 20,000,000 won as a result of the special tax investigation on the 20,000,000,000 won for the above 158,49,959 won for the above taxable period as well as the 10,000,000 won for the above 1,000,000 won for the 20,000,000 won for the 20,000,000 won for the above 1,000,000 won for the 20,000,000 won for the above 3,000,000 won for the above 4,00.

2. In the case of determination based on the estimation method, the tax base and its tax amount should be determined only on the basis of the basis of the most reasonable and reasonable basis for the estimation under each subparagraph of Article 21(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act. In the case that all the documents presented by the taxpayer in filing a voluntary return and payment of the value-added tax are deemed to be incomplete, the estimation should be determined only when the tax base and tax amount cannot be determined even based on those documents.

According to the records, the defendant conducted a witness inspection for the period of April 23, 1984, which was after the end of the taxable period without any data investigation that pointing out the illegality of the books on which the preliminary return of value-added tax was based, and conducted a witness inspection for the period of April 23, 1984, and the contents of the investigation are inconsistent with the contents of the investigation and the entries, which are the basis documents reported by the plaintiff immediately, considered all the contents of the books as documents without credibility and thus, the pertinent taxation disposition cannot be deemed as illegal

In addition, the estimated taxation of partner's right type by the defendant is only one of the methods of estimating the total sales, etc. after the elements of the estimated taxation have occurred, and the amount of revenue cannot be considered as the basis of the estimation on the sole basis that there is no reason to lower the amount of revenue compared to the business performance of "the beauty room" which is a partner. In the case of the beauty room such as this case, in addition to the objective elements such as the number, size, size, unit price of beauty, etc. of the business place, the reputation, technology, location, etc. of the business place are important factors of transaction. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that there is a similar factor in the objective element, and the court below's error of fact-finding in violation of the rules of evidence cannot be adopted.

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

Justices Osung-hwan (Presiding Justice)