Busan District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-20686 ( December 23, 2016)

Cho Jae-Seoul 2015-Divisions-4790 ( December 10, 2015)

The propriety of the disposition imposing the difference between the amount withdrawn from the business account and the details of the expenditure;

Since it is stated that there is no details of loan obtained in relation to expenditure expenses, the difference between the expenditure details and the revenue amount must be proved by the plaintiff, but if it is not proven, it is reasonable to view that the excessive amount of expenditure exceeds the revenue amount is omitted.

Article 80 of the Income Tax Act shall be corrected and decided.

2017Nu20361 (Lawsuit seeking revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Global Income Tax, etc.)

Dog Dog

Head of Central Tax Office

September 13, 2017

October 25, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each imposition authority listed in the attached Table that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on July 9, 2015.

Sector shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court is that the reasoning for this case is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

[Generally, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirement in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing tax shall be borne by the imposing authority. However, if it is revealed that the facts of taxation requirement are presumed in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit, it cannot be readily concluded that the other party is an unlawful disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirement unless the other party proves that the facts in question are not eligible for application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu124, Jul. 24, 1984; 97Nu2429, Oct. 24, 197).

In the instant case, the Plaintiff did not submit an account book for cash sales by asserting that there was no book. Accordingly, the Defendant, based on the statement that the Plaintiff paid all the expenses for the operation of the restaurant only from the sales amount, calculated the "expenses for the operation of the restaurant by quarter" by the data submitted by the Plaintiff, and calculated the "expenses for the operation of the restaurant by quarter" by the data submitted by the Plaintiff, and calculated the amount disbursed as expenses out of the amount of the credit card purchase price by the method of exclusion from daily investigation by daily investigation. (3) The difference between the expenses for the operation of the restaurant and the amount of the credit card purchase price by quarter from the amount of the cash purchase price by the head of the Tong shall be calculated by deducting the amount of cash sales again reported.

If there are some circumstances, the omission of cash sales calculated by the Defendant should be included in the subject of taxation in light of the empirical rule, and it is difficult to prove that only the data submitted by the Plaintiff is the calculation of the "expenses for operating the restaurant by quarter", or that the calculation of the "amount equivalent to the expenses" out of the amount deposited from the head of the Tong is erroneous.

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed.

As a result, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.