If omissions or errors are found after determining the tax base and amount by means of a written investigation determination, a copy of the decision of correction;

In filing the final return on the tax base of the income tax, if any omission or error is found even after the tax authorities have determined the tax base and amount by filing a report on the adjusted account statement under Article 119 of the Income Tax Act, Article 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and by a written investigation decision, the tax base and amount may be investigated and corrected under Article 127 of

Articles 119 and 127 of the Income Tax Act, Article 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu533 Decided May 15, 1984

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of North Korean Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu849 delivered on May 13, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. In making the final return on the tax base pursuant to Article 119 of the Income Tax Act and Article 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if a certified public accountant or a certified tax accountant has attached an adjusted account statement confirmed that the entries in the return are justifiable, the tax authorities shall determine the tax base and tax amount in writing by the relevant return unless there are any apparent omissions or errors in the entries in the return, and the tax authorities shall otherwise deny the contents of the return and shall not determine the tax base and tax amount by the method of on-site investigation or the determination of estimated tax pursuant to Article 118 or 120 of the same Act, but if any omissions or errors are found after the determination of the tax base and tax amount by the method of written investigation and determination, the tax base and tax amount may be investigated and corrected pursuant to Article 127 of the Income Tax Act, and

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below reported the final return on the tax base of 1982, along with the adjusted account statement pursuant to Article 119 of the Income Tax Act and Article 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the defendant made a written decision as stated in the report. After examining the plaintiff's workplace, the defendant received a tax evasion report from the non-party Woo-ri chief of the police station to the effect that the plaintiff omitted the plaintiff's report on the sale price of safe drugs manufactured and sold by the plaintiff and investigated the plaintiff's workplace on the ground that the plaintiff's sales omission amount was 96,80,000 won based on the medical doctor's licenses employed by the plaintiff and the statement of his employees, and determined again the amount of the income tax of this case and the defense tax amount of this case by estimating the tax base based on the estimation of the above sales omission amount in light of the market evidence of the court below, it cannot be deemed reasonable and legitimate to estimate the total amount of income based on the above sales omission amount. Even if the plaintiff prepared the final return and tax base and the tax assessment method in writing.

First of all, when the judgment of the court below makes a written investigation decision under Article 119 of the Income Tax Act, it is erroneous in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, which held that even if omissions or errors have been discovered after the tax base and tax amount were found and that it could not be corrected (this case cited by the judgment of the court below is not a proper precedent, since it does not relate to the same case). However, in light of the records, the court below's decision that rejected the defendant's failure to believe the materials that the defendant recognized the omission in sales of this case, and determined that the defendant's investigation and decision is unreasonable and illegal. In light of the above legal principles, the defendant's taxation of this case cannot be exempted as an unlawful disposition, since there is no incomplete deliberation or any other error

3. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed on the grounds that there is no ground to appeal, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)