The legitimacy of the additional taxation, provided that the case is simple so that the income can be easily identified;

In a case where it is possible to easily grasp the income by a method of investigating the documentary evidence, etc. submitted by a taxpayer due to a relatively simple case of real estate rental income, it is illegal to estimate the income.

Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu499 Decided September 10, 1985 (Specially Article 21(10)506-1, 763No1343 of the Value-Added Tax Act)

Lee Jin-jin

The director of the tax office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1,953,90 for the first term of January 5, 1987 against the Plaintiff, KRW 1,953,90 for the second term of February 1985, KRW 1,953,90 for the second term of February 1, 1985, and KRW 1,391,40 for the first term of January 1, 1986 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

The defendant calculated the tax base of 1.5 on 1987.1. 5 with the size of 1,95,90, 1,900, 1,391,400, and 1,3961, and 6.1,00,000 won which were 0,000 won for 10,000 won for 10,000 won for 10,000 won for 20,000 won for 10,000 won for 10,000 won for 20,000 won for 1,000,000 won for 10,000 won for 20,000 won for 1,000 won for 5,00 won for 1,6,00 won for 1,00 won for 1,00 won for 1,6,000 won for 1,00 won for 16,000 won for 3,000 won for 16,00

As to the allegation that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition grounds and applicable provisions of law, the plaintiff first, while he kept account books by double entry and faithfully returned and paid the amount of rent income, the defendant's disposition of this case, which was corrected and corrected by estimation without considering the rent amount merely because it was lower than neighboring real estate, was unlawful and the disposition of this case is estimated accordingly only when it is recognized as a partner of the same business, considering the location, surrounding environment, and current status of the building, even if the plaintiff's building and the building owned by non-party Lee Jong-ok were different in the new construction year, building structure, use, and surrounding circumstances, and it cannot be viewed as a partner of the same business. However, the defendant's disposition of this case, which reported this case to the partner of the same business as a partner of the same business in comparison only with the size of facilities of the above two buildings, etc., was unlawful.

Therefore, first of all, the plaintiff's argument that the tax base and tax amount of value-added tax should be determined by the actual amount revealed by the method of the field investigation in light of the principle of the basis taxation, and that the method of the estimated investigation is exceptionally permissible when the taxpayer's account book and other documentary evidence exist or it is clear that the important part of the account book and other documentary evidence exists or it is false and the tax authorities are not reliable. Thus, when the taxpayer's account book and documentary evidence presented at the time of filing the tax base return are insufficient or false, the tax authorities should determine the tax base and tax amount by the actual amount based on the existing account book and documentary evidence after obtaining new documentary evidence and making a field investigation, and even if based on such material, the tax base and tax amount can only be determined by the estimation investigation if it is impossible to determine the tax base and tax amount (see Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu578, Feb. 24, 1987; 2009Du19849, Feb. 24, 1989).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the tax disposition of this case is justified and accepted, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-sik (Presiding Judge)