The case revoking the disposition of imposition on the amount of the hotel or club on the ground that the method of estimation for the amount of income of the hotel or club is illegal;

The case revoking the disposition of imposition on the amount of the hotel or club on the ground that the method of estimation for the amount of income of the hotel or club is illegal.

Article 18(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act, Article 69(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree

Samwon Tourism Development Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sam-dong, Law Office, Attorneys Suh-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gangnam Tax Office (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu27405 delivered on May 3, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant imposed the special consumption tax of this case on the plaintiff based on the estimation based on the trade right type for the same period from November 28, 1992 to May 3, 193, when the non-party leased and operated the above age club of this case under the direct management of the plaintiff, and the bank passbook opened in the name of a person in charge of accounting, etc. who is not the reported amount of the above non-party, after taking account of the total income amount of the above non-party, 640,767,893 won calculated by dividing the same amount by the number of business days by 92 days which is the average income amount of the non-party, and based on the estimation method, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the imposition of the special consumption tax of this case as alleged by the defendant.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)