(a) The effects of a tax base return on the income of a taxpayer;

B. Effects of taxation taxation imposed by mistake on the basis of erroneous taxation data

A. In the income tax imposed by the method of imposition, which is not the returned tax payment, the income or tax base return is only one reference material when the tax office imposes the income tax, and it does not take effect such as binding the reported taxpayer, whether the tax amount is determined or not.

B. In a case where a tax authority imposed a tax by mistake of factual relations, the determination of factual relations based on erroneous taxation data is not clear objectively. As such, there are many cases where it is difficult to deem such erroneous taxation data as void as a matter of course. However, in a case where it is evident that the taxation data, which served as the basis for the mistake of factual relations, lacks the external appearance, or is unable to objectively prove the establishment or authenticity of the content thereof, a tax disposition by recognizing taxable income based only on such taxation data should be deemed null and void because the defect is serious and objectively apparent

(a) Article 100 of the Income Tax Act;

A.B. Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu566 Decided March 10, 1987; 84Nu247 Decided July 23, 1985; 84Nu247 Decided August 20, 1985; 84Nu485 Decided September 25, 1984; 84Nu286 Decided November 12, 1985; 84Nu250 Decided November 12, 1985; 84Nu346 Decided November 12, 1985

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Western Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu895 delivered on December 3, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. With respect to income tax imposed by a method of imposition which is not a tax return, it shall be deemed that the tax office's disposition of imposing the income tax only serves as one reference material when it imposes the income tax, and it shall not take effect such as binding force on the person liable for tax payment who has reported (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Nu566, Mar. 10, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu485, Aug. 20, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu247, Jul. 23, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu247, Sept. 23, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 208Nu1684, Oct. 16, 208; 208Nu1864, etc.).

2. According to the records of the judgment of the court below, the above shareholders' non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company'.

3. Reviewing the record and comparison, the above fact-finding by the court below is just, and there is no error of law by incomplete deliberation or misconception of facts with the rules of evidence, and the above legal judgment by the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as it is based on the above opinion of party members. All arguments are without merit.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)