The early 201B 2395

Even if on-site investigation is not possible, it is legitimate to conduct estimated investigation of income amount.

Since it is obvious that the tax base and tax amount cannot be determined even if a field investigation is conducted by pointed out the illegality of evidence submitted to the plaintiff and submitting new materials, it is legitimate to calculate the income by the method of the estimation investigation.

2011Guhap2202 global income and revocation thereof, and partial payment of global income tax shall be refunded.

CHAPTER A

Head of Busan District Tax Office

August 29, 2012

September 26, 2012

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Defendant’s claim for revocation regarding the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on February 4, 2010 shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

피고가 원고에 대하여， ① 2010. 2. 4.에 한 2008년 귀속 종합소득세 000원의，② 2011. 3. 1.에 한 ㉮ 2005년 귀속 종합소득세 000원의，㉯ 2006년 귀속 종합 소득세 000원의，㉰ 2007년 귀속 종합소득세 000원의，㉱ 2008년 귀속 종합소득세 000원의，(마) 2009년 귀속 종합소득세 000원의，3) 2011. 6. 1.에 한 ㉮ 2005년 귀속 종합소득세 000원의，㉯ 2006년 귀속 종합소득세 000원의 각 부과처분을 취소한다.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 1, 2002, the Plaintiff registered his/her business with the trade name "Japan Trade," and reported his/her credit business retroactively as of June 30, 2005 on the ground of his/her non-business depression on August 8, 2005. The Plaintiff registered his/her credit business again on September 6, 2005 with the trade name "O loan height", and operated the credit business after having registered his/her business with the same trade name on January 2, 2006, and reported his/her discontinuation of business as of December 31, 2010 on the ground of his/her non-business depression.

B. On Nov. 2, 2009, the Daejeon Regional Tax Office confirmed that, at the time of regular audit of the Defendant on July 2, 2008, the Plaintiff omitted a return on income of KRW 00 of the interest of KRW 2300,00, which was paid in the auction case No. 8773 at the Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court on July 2, 2008. Accordingly, the Defendant considered it as the profit of non-business, and issued a disposition imposing KRW 00,000 as global income tax for the Plaintiff on February 4, 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition on February 4, 2011”), and calculated the amount of income by considering it as the business income, while imposing the tax for the additional omission for the year 208 as follows.

C. From December 1, 2010 to January 13, 2011, the Defendant: (a) conducted a tax investigation into global income tax for the three years from 2005 to 2009; (b) conducted a tax investigation into global income; (c) conducted the Plaintiff’s global income tax for the year 2005 to 2009; (c) conducted a tax investigation into global income for the year 2006; (d) the Plaintiff’s global income for the year 2007; (d) the amount of 000 won for the year 2005 to 2008; and (e) the Plaintiff did not keep a book for the year 2005 to 200.1; and (e) imposed a global income tax for the Plaintiff for the year 200 to 2008; and (e) imposed a global income for the year 200 to 200 to 2008.20 to 200.1.

D. On June 1, 2011, the Defendant imposed each disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff omitted the return of KRW 000 from the deposit received on October 25, 2005, the global income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2005, and ② the Plaintiff omitted the return of KRW 000 for the interest income received in cash on March 7, 2006 (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 00 for the year 2006”).

E. On April 1, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant regarding the instant disposition of imposition on March 1, 2011, but received a decision of dismissal on April 21, 201, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 29, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, and 66, and Eul evidence 1 through 6 (including the number, if any), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. The defendant's main defense

The Defendant, and the Plaintiff, who did not go through legitimate pre-trial procedure in relation to each of the dispositions of this case, prove that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

B. Determination

Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "no administrative lawsuit against an illegal disposition provided for in Article 55 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be filed without going through a request for examination or adjudgment and a decision thereon under this Act, notwithstanding the main sentence of Article 18 (1), Article 18 (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act," and Article 27 (1) of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that "an administrative appeal shall be filed within 90 days from the date when the plaintiff becomes aware of the disposition," and it shall be considered that the plaintiff has gone through a lawful first instance procedure before filing

1) First of all, with respect to each disposition taken on March 1, 2011 and June 1, 2011, the health team, and ① the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant on April 1, 2011 upon the instant disposition taken on March 1, 201; and the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 29, 201, within the period from April 21, 201 to 90 days upon the receipt of the decision of dismissal; ② the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 1, 2011, within 90 days with respect to the disposition taken on June 1, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 29, 201, and as of August 29, 2012, the date on which each of the above dispositions was closed, the date on which each of the above dispositions was filed, and as of June 21, 2011, the Plaintiff had no legitimate grounds for the final appeal.

2) Next, regarding the disposition taken on February 4, 2010 of the instant case, health care units, and the Plaintiff on June 29, 201

The facts that the Tax Tribunal requested the revocation of the disposition taken on February 4, 2010 in the instant case while requesting a trial to the Tax Tribunal are as seen earlier, but it is inappropriate to deem that the period for requesting an administrative appeal was over, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had gone through legitimate procedures for a prior trial, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had gone through legitimate procedures for a prior trial, and the part on the claim for revocation of the disposition taken on February 4, 2010 in the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

3. Determination as to the legality of each disposition taken on March 1, 2011 and June 1, 2011

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, while running a credit business, was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff had to keep books, and the amount of interest was reduced by making a return on the reduction of the amount of interest income by taking into account the amount of losses not paid to the principal and interest. In the course of imposing global income tax on the amount of interest income omitted from 2005 to 2009, the Defendant calculated the amount of income by applying simple expense or standard expense rate without disregarding allegations and proof as to the Plaintiff’s loss claims and necessary expenses. However, each annual loss claims and necessary expenses are normally deducted, each of the annual interest income causes 0, and each of the instant dispositions is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to whether it is legitimate to calculate the amount of income by means of estimated survey

Article 80 (3) of the Income Tax Act provides that "the head of a regional tax office or a regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall calculate or correct the tax base and amount of income for the pertinent taxable period based on the books or other supporting documents if he/she could not calculate the amount of income by the books or other supporting documents for the reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 143 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "if there are no necessary books or other supporting documents for the calculation of the tax base and amount of income or if it is unclear or false, the amount of income for the plaintiff cannot be calculated by 0 years after filing a tax return and 10-year tax base and 20-year tax base and 10-year tax base and 20-year tax base and 9-year tax base and 9-year tax base and 9-year tax base and 9-year tax base and 2-year tax base and 9-year tax base and 9-year tax base and 9-year tax base and 9-year tax base are not applied.

2) Determination as to whether the calculation of the amount of income by the method of estimated survey was lawfully made

Article 143 (3) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Article 143 (3) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act) shall be determined or corrected by estimation of income amount under the proviso to

(a) Purchase expenses and rent for fixed assets for business which are paid or payable by documentary evidence;

(b) Wages, wages and retirement allowances of employees which are paid or payable by documentary evidence.

(c) provide that the amount obtained by multiplying the income by standard expense rate shall be determined or corrected as the income amount.

A) First of all, as seen in Article 143(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, wages are to be paid to K K and saltL among the necessary expenses alleged by the Plaintiff. The wage and wages of the employees shall be separately considered, and the fact of payment shall be recognized by objective data, such as wage withholding tax or payment records (see Notice 2003-36, Dec. 17, 2003). The burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff’s side where the health stand and witness LL correspond to the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the Plaintiff’s 15-day 12 through 15-day , and the Plaintiff’s son and the Plaintiff’s Dun NN were not provided with the Plaintiff’s 200 or 15-day , and the Plaintiff’s Dun NN, and the Plaintiff’s Don NL was not provided with the Plaintiff’s 200 or 15-day 3-day 3-day 3-day 3-day 3-year 3-day 3-year 3, and 9.

B) We examine the argument that the claim for other necessary expenses except wages and the claim for losses should be deducted from the amount of income as bad debts.

Among the plaintiff's assertion, other necessary expenses (such as taxes, insurance premiums, telephone and Handphones, management expenses, closure installation expenses, etc.) and bad debts are not included in the amount calculated pursuant to Article 143 (3) 1 (a) and (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and there is no need for separate consideration as long as the method of calculating the amount of income by the method of the estimation investigation is legitimate and should be considered separately, and this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without reason for further review. [In addition, in the case of loss claims under the plaintiff's assertion for reasons of impossibility of recovery, only when the business operator is clearly unable to recover and counted in the necessary expenses for the relevant taxable year (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du6737, Jun. 1, 2007); and there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion in this respect, and there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion in this respect).

4. Conclusion

If so, the part of the lawsuit in this case, which was revoked on February 4, 2010, is improper and dismissed, and the plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.