(a) The burden of proving the amount of expenses to be included in the calculation of losses which are the tax base of corporate tax; and

B. The purpose of the cost claimed by the Plaintiff by the Defendant, the taxation authority, and the need to prove the existence of the cost and the amount of the cost in the event that the other party to the payment has proved to the extent that it is reasonable to believe that some of the cost reported by the Plaintiff, the taxpayer, is not an actual cost

(c) The burden of proving that the taxpayer has omitted the report on the expenses to be included in the deductible expenses corresponding to the omitted sales amount, etc. in filing a return on the tax base of corporate tax (=taxpayer)

A. In an administrative litigation seeking revocation on the grounds of illegality of taxation disposition, in principle, the defendant, who is the taxation authority, bears the burden of proof with respect to the legality of disposition and the existence of the fact of taxation requirements. However, with respect to the existence of special circumstances belonging to this precedent according to the empirical rule, the plaintiff, who is the taxpayer, must bear the burden of proof or proof. Therefore, the burden of proof with respect to the amount of expenses to be included in the deductible expenses, which are the basis of the determination of the corporate tax base, is in principle at the taxation authority. However, there is a lack of proof with respect to the specific items of expenses, or when the taxpayer

B. The issue is whether a part of the expenses reported by the Plaintiff, who is the taxpayer, is an actual cost, and as long as the use of the expenses claimed by the Plaintiff by the Defendant, who is the tax office, and the other party to the payment thereof, have been proved to be false (or as long as the Plaintiff asserts that there was a fact that there was a cost other than the same amount while the Plaintiff did not incur the expenses according to the details of the report), it shall be deemed that there is a need to prove that there is a need to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present all data, such as the account book and documentary evidence on the specific cost disbursement facts, and that there is a need to prove that there is a change in the burden of proof or to prove the burden of proof according to the standards of equity between the parties.

C. If a taxpayer finds any revenue, such as omitted sales, in filing a return of corporate tax base, etc., the competent tax office may include the omitted revenue in gross income. If a taxpayer has omitted the return of revenues to be included in gross income in filing a return of tax base, etc. and there is any omission in the return of expenses to be included in deductible expenses corresponding thereto, the claimant for inclusion in deductible expenses of such expenses must prove that such omission in filing a return has been made. This is also reasonable in accordance with the general principle of burden of proof as to special circumstances where the taxpayer under-reported the return by omitting some of the expenses to be included in deductible expenses, i.e., the taxpayer under-reported the return by omitting some of the expenses to be included in deductible expenses, based on the usual empirical rule, even if the taxpayer under-reported the return by omitting some of the expenses.

Article 8 (Civil Procedure Act) Article 261 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 9 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 12(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu2851 delivered on February 13, 1990 (Gong1990,686). Supreme Court Decision 85Nu1004 delivered on October 13, 1987 (Gong1987,1721) decided November 22, 1991 (Gong192,343)

Attorney Kim Jae-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu15350 delivered on October 25, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the part concerning the purchase cost of raw materials in the judgment of the court below out of the amount included in deductible expenses in the return of the corporate tax base of this case as deductible expenses is not actual expenses, and determined that the amount included in gross income was omitted from the amount included in gross income, and that the part was added to gross income, and that the defendant was justified in denying the inclusion of this part in deductible expenses on the ground that the defendant did not recognize the use as asserted by the plaintiff or the purchase of materials from the customer.

In light of the records, we affirm the above fact-finding of the court below and we cannot find any violation of the rules of evidence. We cannot accept the argument.

2. In an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of a taxation disposition on the grounds of illegality, in principle, the defendant bears the burden of proof with respect to the legality of the disposition and the existence of the facts requiring taxation. However, with respect to the existence of special circumstances belonging to this precedent according to the empirical rule, the plaintiff who is the taxpayer must bear the burden of proof or proof with respect to the amount of expenses to be included in the deductible expenses, which are the basis of the determination of the corporate tax base, in principle, the tax office has the burden of proof with regard to the amount of expenses to be included in the deductible expenses. However, in principle, there are cases where the taxpayer bears the burden of proof in consideration of the parties' equity, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu2851,

Therefore, the issue is whether some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer are actual expenses, and the purpose of the expenses claimed by the plaintiff by the defendant who is the tax office, and the counterpart to the payment of the expenses is proved to be false (or so long as the plaintiff asserts that there was a fact that there was a cost of other authorization expenses equivalent to the same amount while recognizing that the expenses are not expenditure according to the details of the report), it is necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present all the data, such as the account books and evidence concerning the specific expenses, in relation to the existence and amount of other expenses.

In such a case, the tax office cannot require the proof of the absence of any other actual cost corresponding to the expenses reported as false content. Thus, the issue of proof of the specific items of expenses and the need for the conversion of burden of proof or the need for the proof according to the standards of equity between the parties is determined.

As determined by the court below, the judgment of the court below that the defendant denied the inclusion of the part of the expenses in the calculation of losses and that the disposition of correction of the plaintiff's report is legitimate is also justifiable, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are groundless.

3. If a taxpayer finds any revenue, such as the omitted amount of sales, in filing a return on the tax base of corporate tax, etc., the taxation office may include the omitted income in gross income. If a taxpayer has omitted the return of revenues to be included in gross income in filing a return on the tax base, etc., but the taxpayer has failed to report expenses to be included in deductible expenses corresponding thereto, the person who asserts such omission in filing a return should prove that such expenses were included in deductible expenses. Unless the taxpayer proves that separate expenses corresponding to the omission in sales have been incurred, the party member's view that the total amount of omitted income is deemed as omitted income without the need to re-deduction the expenses corresponding to the omission in sales (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu104, Oct. 13, 1987; 91Nu4935, Nov. 22, 1991) is reasonable to prove that the taxpayer voluntarily under-reported expenses should be included in deductible expenses without any special proof that the taxpayer under-reported expenses should be included in gross income.

The court below rejected the plaintiff's proposal claiming a separate expense deduction on the premise that there was an omission of sales in the decision, on the premise that there was no evidence that the sales cost has been separately paid, and the decision of the court below that the separate expense deduction is not recognized is just, and the decision of the court below is also justified, and the decision of the court below is also acceptable with the premise that there was an omission of sales (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 30, 72, and 428 through 432, etc. of the record). There is no error of law by misunderstanding the purport of the parties' assertion, such as the theory of lawsuit, and it is not justified in the decision of the court below

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 Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)