(a) The case affirming the judgment of the court below which calculated the lawful tax amount by deducting the necessary expenses confirmed by the data presented during the litigation from the fact that a certified judicial scrivener estimated and determined tax amount was illegal

(b) Whether the existence of other costs without documentary evidence can be the basis for the decision of estimated investigation;

(c) Whether the judgment of the court below which omitted the additional payment for the erroneous payment when calculating the legitimate tax amount even if it recognizes that there has been the unpaid tax amount;

(a) The case affirming the judgment of the court below that, in case where the details of expenditure related to the calculation of the income amount of a certified judicial scrivener are simple and the data are presented during the lawsuit, the taxation disposition that estimated the income amount is unlawful, and where it is possible to investigate the actual amount of expenditure even if the tax base is determined by the method of the estimation investigation by applying the standard income ratio, such amount shall be determined by the method of the field investigation, and the necessary expenses verified by

(b) cannot serve as a reason for the estimation investigation decision, on the ground that the cost of which verification has not been sufficiently verified, in addition to the cost of evidence, is more likely to be increased;

C. While recognizing that there is a tax amount to be paid late due to a failure to pay the calculated tax, the lower court’s revocation of the tax disposition corresponding to the additional tax amount under Article 121(3) of the Income Tax Act by omitting the amount equivalent to the additional tax amount due to the failure to pay the calculated tax amount, may be corrected through the procedure of correction of the judgment, as it is obvious that such mistake is an error in the calculation, and thus, it cannot

Articles 118 and 120 of the Income Tax Act; Articles 166 and 169 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act; Article 121(3) of the Income Tax Act; Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act (Article 197 of the Civil Procedure Act)

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 85Nu859 delivered on March 10, 1987 (Gong1987,656) 87Nu537 delivered on October 11, 1988 (Gong1988,1415) 91Nu8203 delivered on July 24, 1992 (Gong1992,2579), 91Nu10909 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong192,2600), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu12585 delivered on July 10, 1992 (Gong192,243) 92Nu17297 delivered on April 23, 1993 (Gong193,1579)

Plaintiff

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu14884 delivered on March 18, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In this case, the Plaintiff reported the tax base and tax amount of global income tax at KRW 22,115,471 multiplied by the standard rate of income for the above income amount, while the amount of income is KRW 45,318,590, and the amount of income is KRW 22,115,471, which is reported by the Plaintiff. The Defendant asserts that the amount of income reported by the Plaintiff is corrected by 26,410,505, and its tax base and tax amount of the added income after finding that there is KRW 4,267,034 and earned income amount 28,000, which is reported by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff reported the amount of income of a certified judicial scrivener at a standard rate of income, but the Plaintiff stated that the amount of income of a certified judicial scrivener was returned by the income amount, but the evidence of expenses necessary for calculating the amount of income was kept in full and simple. Thus, even

2. The lower court determined that the instant taxation, which the Defendant estimated the amount of a certified judicial scrivener’s income, was unlawful, based on the following: (a) the details of expenses disbursement related to calculating the amount of a certified judicial scrivener’s income are simple; and (b) the amount of income should not be estimated because the Plaintiff presented the relevant materials during the lawsuit; and (c)

3. The first ground for appeal by the defendant litigation performer is based on the premise that the issue of this case is the plaintiff's method of determining the amount of income and the amount of income as a certified judicial scrivener, and it is impossible for the court below to make a field investigation determination of the amount of income because there is no objective evidence on the amount of income. In addition, even if the tax base is determined by the estimation method, if it is possible to conduct an actual investigation on the amount of total expenditure, the amount shall be determined by the method of the field investigation.

However, it is clear that the Plaintiff reported the amount of income as an actual income and that the Defendant did not make a further estimation investigation or correction of the amount of income. Thus, the argument that the lower court asserted that the Plaintiff did not object to the reasons for the disposition that the amount of income was the case of estimated investigation, or that the lower court did not render a judgment as to whether there was a circumstance against the reason for taxation disposition.

In addition, the reasoning of the judgment pointing this out is that it is not a wrong statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu859, Mar. 10, 1987; 85Nu859, etc.). The defendant's revenue amount is irrelevant to the conclusion of the case. There is no reason to discuss.

4. The second ground for appeal argues that the on-site investigation of expenses is impossible because there is no evidence as to other necessary expenses than the expenses acknowledged by the court below. However, it cannot be used as a ground for the estimation investigation on the ground that there is any further cost verification, and it is acceptable that the court below's decision on the on-site investigation is just that the amount of income is determined by deducting the verifiable expenses and deducting the expenses. Therefore, there is no illegality in violation of the rules of evidence, such

5. Finally, I examine the point of view that there is an error in calculating the fair tax amount.

The court below held that although the plaintiff filed a return of 22,115,471 won as global income for the taxable year of this case, the legitimate global income amount is less than 14,058,904 won, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff constitutes "when the plaintiff files a return below the global income amount that should be reported" under Article 121 (1) of the Income Tax Act in light of the facts of recognition. It is not reasonable in the court below's decision that this part of the penalty tax was omitted.

However, while the court below acknowledged that there was a tax amount to be notified of late payment due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the calculated tax amount, it was erroneous for the court below to revoke the pertinent tax disposition without omitting the amount equivalent to the amount of additional tax under Article 121(3) above from the amount of a legitimate tax. However, the court below’s error is obvious that such error is an error in the calculation and can be corrected through the procedure of correction of judgment, so it cannot be deemed a ground to reverse the judgment of the court below. The argument is

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)