Whether it is possible to impose some taxation on the taxable period by presumption as an uncertain financial investigation.

If the facts alleged in the facts of taxation in light of the empirical rule are revealed, the other party cannot be regarded as an illegal disposition unless it proves that the facts at issue are not eligible for the application of the empirical rule.

Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. All of the claims for cancellation of resident tax imposition disposition among the lawsuits of this case shall be dismissed.

2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On February 4, 2005, the Defendant imposed value-added tax for 1,082,840 won, value-added tax for 2,000 won, value-added tax for 2,000 won, value-added tax for 2,1,041, value-added tax for 2,214,890 won, value-added tax for 2,45,030 won, value-added tax for 2,04, for 207, 204, for 205, for 207, for 204, for 207, for 204, for 207, for 204, for 204, for 205, for 36, for global income tax for 2, 306, for 204, for 2, 307, for 204, for 2, 207, 340, for global income tax for 2, 2003

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings, either there is no dispute between the parties, or there is no evidence Nos. 1 to 14 of the evidence No. 1.

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the land of the fourth floor above the ground level (hereinafter “instant building”) located on the land of 00:0:00 :00 - 00 - 00 - 000 - 00 - 000 - 000 - 000 - 000 - the real estate rental business is running using the instant building.

B. The Plaintiff reported tax base for value-added tax, 19,017,123 won for the first term of 200, 23,432,876 won for the second term of 200, 200, 206,575 won for the second term of 201, 201, 20,433,424 won for the second term of 2001, 19,083,835 won for the second term of 2002, 19,216,164 won for the second term of 202, 18,389,589 won for the first term of 203, 18,510, 410 won for the second term of 203, 18,409, 409, 204 for the first term of 200, 203, and 301, 2004.

(c) The defendant was informed of the fact of tax evasion, etc. as to the above real estate lease as 00, 200, 30, 200, 20, 207, 30, 205, 20, 30, 206, 40, 207, 20, 206, 20, 30, 207, 206, 30, 40, 206, 207, 20, 30, 205, 206, 30, 204, 206, 207, 206, 206, 30, 206, 206, 30, 206, 204, 207, 306, 205, 206, 204, 207, 200, 201.

2. Determination on each part of the lawsuit in this case as to the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing resident tax

ex officio deemed.

According to Article 177-4(1), (2), and (5) of the Local Tax Act, resident tax to be imposed is a local tax to be paid to the head of the Si/Gun (in the case of the Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities, the head of the Gu; hereinafter the same shall apply) having jurisdiction over the place for payment of income tax, and where the head of the tax office collects income tax by the method of imposition and notice in accordance with the Framework Act on National Taxes or the Income Tax Act, it shall be deemed that the head of the Si/Gun has imposed and collected income tax, even if the resident tax to be imposed is imposed and collected, it shall be deemed that the head of the Gun has imposed and collected income tax in addition to the resident tax to be imposed and collected. Thus, the defendant in an appellate suit seeking the revocation of the disposition of imposition of resident tax to be imposed on each of the instant cases shall be deemed to be unlawful on the non-qualified defendant (On the other hand, pursuant to Article 177-4(4) of the Local Tax Act, the head of the Si/Gun must refund resident tax to be imposed on the Plaintiff.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful since the lease revenue, which is the basis of the instant disposition, is different from the facts in the following respects.

(1) Part 00 of the lessee's land (00 YO)

The 00 Sea State has long leased 00 Doz. Doz. to Doz. Doz. for a long time and transferred Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. 200, the Plaintiff received Doz. 200 as Doz. 300, and some of them received Doz. 300 as Doz.

(2) Part 00,000,000,000

6,000,000 won in cash deposited together with the Plaintiff’s wage in the Plaintiff’s passbook, which the Plaintiff received 1,000,000 won from April 27, 200, were lent to Nonparty 00, who was the birth of Nonparty 1, who was the birth of Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff, but was repaid, the Defendant was included in the rent.

(3) A lessee’s 00 parts (000 Doz.)

Although the defendant viewed the whole amount of Y00 Scat Manman's deposit into the plaintiff's account as the rent, some of them are repaid with the amount lent by the plaintiff to Y0.

(4) Part of the instant land

15,000,000 won received from the Plaintiff on 100 to 2001 is not a rent but a pre-sale for the land of this case. 15,000,000 won received on 202 is merely a discount for bill, and the Plaintiff does not lease the land to 00,000.

B. Determination

If there is an error or omission in the final return on the tax base of a taxpayer pursuant to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, it is the principle to correct the details of the tax return by books or evidence, but if it is recognized that there is an error or omission in the details of the tax return by other data and it is possible to conduct a field investigation, it may be corrected by other data. On-site investigation is a special method to determine the total revenue of a taxpayer by investigating the amount deposited in the financial transfer account of the taxpayer, so it is a legitimate field investigation. In addition, if the facts alleged in the facts alleged in the facts of taxation requirements in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, unless the other party proves the circumstances that the facts in question were not eligible to be subject to the application of the empirical rule, it cannot be readily concluded that the taxation disposition in question is illegal unless it satisfies the taxation requirements.

In full view of the purport of all the arguments in this case, the Plaintiff reported and paid value-added tax and comprehensive income tax at a lower level than the actual one as shown in the above 1. B. The Defendant may investigate the Plaintiff and the lessee, and recognize that the issuer conducted the Plaintiff’s financial transaction and recognized the amount of money deposited with each of the above money as the Plaintiff’s lease revenue. Meanwhile, while recognizing that each lease contract made between the Plaintiff and the lessee in the process of the Defendant’s tax investigation and the lawsuit, the Plaintiff did not disclose the actual rent under the agreement with each of the lessees while not only did it state that each lease contract made between the lessee was made for the purpose of tax evasion, but also did not submit any objective material that can recognize the above facts of its assertion. In light of the above legal principles, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the claims for revocation of the resident tax imposition disposition among the lawsuit of this case are dismissed, and the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the disposition of value-added tax and global income tax is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.