A. Decision of correction after taxation by written investigation and decision

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found omission of income amount in violation of the rules of evidence

A. In filing the final return on the tax base of income tax, even after the tax authorities determine the tax base and tax amount by means of a written investigation in accordance with Article 119 of the Income Tax Act and Article 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if the revenue amount is found not to be included in the taxpayer’s declaration, it may be corrected pursuant to Article 127 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, if the tax authorities find an omission through a field investigation, it shall be allowed to rectify the amount, and it shall not be corrected only where it is found that the revenue amount was omitted by other government agencies

B. The case that reversed the judgment of the court below which found omission of income amount in violation of the rules of evidence

Articles 119 and 127 of the Income Tax Act, Article 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu459 decided Dec. 10, 1985 (Gong1986,257) 89Nu4840 decided Jan. 25, 1990 (Gong1990,574) decided Jun. 14, 1991 (Gong1991,1955)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Seogsan Tax Office

Busan High Court Decision 94Gu1982 delivered on December 1, 1994

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

1. As to the second ground for appeal:

In making the final return on the tax base of the income tax, even after the tax authorities determine the tax base and tax amount by means of a written investigation in accordance with Article 119 of the Income Tax Act and Article 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if the tax authorities find any omission not included in the taxpayer’s return, it may correct it pursuant to Article 127 of the Income Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu1045, Jun. 14, 1991; 89Nu4840, Jan. 25, 1990; 85Nu459, Dec. 10, 1985; 85Nu459, Dec. 10, 1985). In such a case, it shall be allowed to correct it only if the tax authorities find the omission through a field investigation, and it is not possible to correct it only if it is found that the revenue amount was omitted by other government agencies, such as investigation agencies

2. As to ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant issued the instant tax disposition without any ground, and affirmed the instant tax disposition, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff engaged in meat wholesale business at the time of 1990 and the global income tax return in 1991, which was rejected by the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant’s public officials, who received information on the Plaintiff’s tax evasion with respect to the Plaintiff’s workplace, confirmed the omission of the amount of income; and (c) confirmed the fact that the amount of income stored in the Plaintiff’s workplace was investigated; and (d) confirmed that the amount of income

However, it is difficult to accept such judgment of the court below.

The court below acknowledged the above facts and cited the whole purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, 1-2 and 2-1, 2-3 as evidence, and the whole purport of pleadings. Among them, since Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2-1, 1-2 and 2-1 and 2-2 are merely a written decision, the court below's important evidence which the court below employed in recognizing the plaintiff's omission amount of import seems to be 3-2 and 2-1 through 3, etc. of Eul evidence No. 1-2.

However, the above evidence No. 1-3 and No. 2-1 of the above evidence No. 1-3 and No. 2-1 of the above evidence No. 1-2 are the plaintiff's tax investigation report and the examination report and the second statement of a public official who conducted a tax investigation at the plaintiff's workplace and prepared a confirmation based on the one-time keeping of the contents in the workplace, and there is no evidence supporting the contents of the statement, and there is no seizure as to the one-book that made the preparation basis, and there is no way to confirm the authenticity and preparation process of the contents, and it is not a way to confirm whether the contents were written only with respect to the plaintiff's meat store transaction. Thus, the above examination report and the

On the other hand, the evidence Nos. 2-2 and 3 (Certificate) stated that the plaintiff is the title holder of the document, but the plaintiff refused to affix his signature and seal without the plaintiff's signature and seal. The plaintiff disputes the establishment of the document at the original court's site and there is no evidence that the document is actually prepared by the plaintiff, and there is no evidence that the document and the family register stated as the ground for the preparation of the document are attached to the document, and the authenticity of the document is doubtful, and it is difficult to view that there is credibility because the document itself is written only on the total sales amount without stating the opposite contractual party, the time of the transaction, and the transaction method.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized the above facts based on only the above evidence and judged that the above taxation disposition of this case is justifiable is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the taxation based on the ground, or the determination of the value of the evidence, and therefore there is a ground to challenge the purport of pointing this out.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)