Receiving different appraisal results for the same matter

When there are several different appraisal results with respect to the same matter, one of them is legitimate unless it is in violation of the rules of experience and logic even if one of them is recognized as facts, and the other is excluded from specifying the reasons therefor.

Articles 305 and 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da2091 Decided November 23, 1971, 81Da13, 14 decided June 8, 1982, 83Meu239 Decided June 14, 1983

[Defendant-Appellee] Jinju Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee and defendant-appellee

Head of the Military Tax Office

Gwangju High Court Decision 79Gu7 delivered on May 4, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

The court below's appraisal statement prepared by the non-party to the appraiser of the court below is not acceptable, on the premise that the above appraisal statement is unclear or not in violation of the Corporate Tax Act or the corporate accounting principles, and if the facts were to be recognized based on one of the different appraisal results in the same matter, it is legitimate that it does not violate the rules of experience or logic, and that it is unlawful in the court below's incomplete deliberation, if it is acknowledged based on one of them, and it does not contain any specific reasons, and if it is acknowledged based on one of them, it should be deemed that it does not violate the rules of experience or logic, and it is unnecessary to specify the reasons in detail, and it cannot be said that the court below has found any error of finding the above non-party's appraisal statement in this case as a result of the above appraisal in the inclusion of the above facts in the calculation of the sales omission amount.

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

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young