(a) requirements for and the burden of proof on the legitimacy of the estimated taxation;

B. Whether it is necessary to conduct an on-site investigation in case of estimated taxation

(c)requirements for adoption of partner-only rooms in making estimated taxation;

A. The estimated taxation under the Income Tax Act should be reasonable and reasonable so that the method and content of the estimation can reflect the income loss nearest to the truth, as well as the case where it is not possible to conduct an estimated tax due to the impossibility of an actual amount investigation. The legality of the estimated tax shall be the burden of proof of rationality and feasibility when disputing the legality of the estimated tax.

B. The tax authority may make a decision based on the estimation method only when it points out the illegality of all documents, etc. presented by the taxpayer and receives new data and conducts a field investigation after the year, and it cannot determine the tax base and the amount of tax, and it is evident that the contents of all documentary evidence are false as a result of the investigation.

(c) In order to adopt the method of partner authority, one of the estimation methods, it should be the case of another partner should be subject to the on-site investigation method based on objective evidence, such as bookkeeping, and there should be objective possibilities that the total income amount of the business operator concerned would be similar to that of the partner, and it should be reasonable and reasonable.

(a)Article 120(1) of the Income Tax Act, Article 169 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Nu295 delivered on April 10, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu49 delivered on December 10, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu967 delivered on September 9, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu833 delivered on September 23, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 79Nu408 delivered on March 11, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu305 delivered on March 13, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu348 delivered on May 28, 1985

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1044 Decided September 22, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The case holding that since the additional taxation under the Income Tax Act is exceptionally acknowledged in cases where there are no books or documentary evidence of a taxpayer, which serves as the basis for the determination of tax base, or where it is impossible to use them as the basis for the determination of tax base because the contents are incomplete or false, it should be reasonable and reasonable to reflect the actual income amount close to the truth and the method and contents of the estimation in a reasonable and reasonable manner. If the legitimacy of the additional taxation is disputed, the burden of proving the reasonableness and validity should be imposed on the defendant who is the tax authority. Thus, the tax authority must point out the illegality of all the documents presented by the taxpayer and make new documentary evidence after the year when it is found that the contents of all the documentary evidence are false, and it can only be said that the tax base and amount can be determined based on the additional investigation method, and the reasons why the amount of revenue reported by the taxpayer has been significantly decreased compared to the previous year cannot be concluded to be clearly false, and it should be an objective and reasonable method that the contents of the books and documentary evidence are similar to those of the business partner in order to adopt the calculation method.

According to the decision of the court below, since the plaintiff, who had operated the medical business in Jung-gu, Seoul, 1982, filed a final return on the tax base of global income tax in May 31, 1983, and reported the plaintiff's revenue and income amount, the defendant denied the above contents of the report and estimated the plaintiff's total revenue in 1982 by the method of partner authority, on the ground that there is a substantial difference between the revenue amount and the revenue amount in comparison with the previous year, the court below found that the above disposition of this case was rendered based on the above facts, and that the court below did not have the right to request the plaintiff's new statement on the cash sales and credit sales as well as the pertinent business partner's new statement on the revenue amount and credit sales at the time of 1982 under Article 20 (1) 3 and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1982, Dec. 31, 1982), and that there was no reason to acknowledge the plaintiff's new revenue amount of the plaintiff's revenue and credit account and estimate, and other improper evidence.

Examining the evidence relations selected by the court below in light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misconception of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, and the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles pointing out the arguments. All arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Kim Dal-sik (Presiding Justice)