Whether the standard rate of income and the two-dimensional income standard rate of the tax base are in violation of the principle of no taxation without the law.

The standard rate of income is the income rate by type of business applied to calculate the amount of income, which is the tax base, while the tax rate is applied to the tax base to calculate the amount of tax, so the tax rate is distinguished by law, but the standard rate of income is delegated to the discretion of the tax authorities, so the two standard rate of income cannot be deemed to be in violation of the principle

Plaintiff

Daejeon director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 74Gu313 delivered on February 3, 1976

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal (including relevant supplementary grounds of appeal) are examined.

1. According to the original judgment, the court below examined the plaintiff's account books and documentary evidence on March 30, 1974 and confirmed that most of the buyers recorded in the above book did not have an address or purchased the plaintiff's product, and that sales price was 205,848 won or less per ton sold at 610,000 won or more by the statement of the purchaser, and that the plaintiff's account books and documentary evidence could not be determined on the basis of the method of estimated investigation in accordance with related Acts and subordinate statutes because the plaintiff's account books and documentary evidence was clearly false in light of the power consumption in this taxable period, etc. of the facilities established in the plaintiff's workplace and the number of employees, and that the court below determined the tax amount based on the method of estimated investigation in accordance with related Acts and subordinate statutes. Accordingly, the court below reviewed the evidence cooking relation which was lawful to recognize the above facts, and according to the above facts, it is clear that the court below's determination of the amount of taxation under related Acts and subordinate statutes and the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act constitutes an incomplete or fraudulent part.

2. The decision of the court below is with the purport that the defendant ordered the director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office to make a decision by taking into account the plaintiff's raw material purchase volume and the estimated sales value of the product, and therefore, the decision of this case was made by the authorities of another partner who was investigated by type of business, and it is clear that the decision of this case was made by the plaintiff's estimation method pursuant to Article 77 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Business Tax Act, and then the plaintiff's estimation method is the estimation method of the sales amount of the product after the plaintiff's estimation method is calculated by the receipt, etc. of raw material purchase price, including the tonnage of raw material carried over from electricity, and the sales price per ton of the product shall be calculated by 264,000 won each by the monthly price investigated by the National Tax Service from October to December of the same year.

(1) Thus, since the disposition of this case is in the case of Article 77 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, it is not necessary to investigate the authority type for the same type of business, unlike the case of subparagraph 1 of the same Article, and it is not reasonable to discuss that the plaintiff exercises discretionary power that loses equity by comparing the plaintiff and the company with the plaintiff since the plaintiff is not a company producing the same product.

(2) Original estimation determination under the Business Tax Act is a method that takes place in cases where the total output and total sales are unknown, and the method of estimation determination under Article 77 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Business Tax Act applied in this case is the tax base of the amount calculated by the right type with other partners who were investigated by business type by the tax authorities. Thus, the argument that the last inventory should be excluded, such as in the case of the on-site investigation determination, is based on the premise that the last inventory or the last balance, etc. of the last product or raw materials cannot be confirmed by the tax authorities. Thus, the argument that the last inventory should be excluded, such as in the case of the on

(3) According to Article 92 (2) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, in case where the income amount, which is the tax base of the income tax, is estimated, the income amount shall be determined by multiplying the amount which is the business tax base or the amount in a similar nature by the Government's standard income rate which is examined and decided by type of business, and the plaintiff's account book, etc. shall be the case where the important part of the business is not known or false, as stated in the above explanation, the purport of the judgment of the court below is that the defendant's disposition on which both the business tax and the income tax are estimated is legitimate by the judgment, which can be determined by the reasons that the court below's decision can be determined by the decision that the business tax and the income tax are not repeated, but only the requirements for the estimate determination

(4) With respect to the assertion that the standard rate of income is against the principle of no taxation without law, and that it is an abuse of discretionary power to apply it indiscreetly, the standard rate of income is the income rate by type of business applied to calculate the amount of income, which is the tax base, and the tax rate is applied to the tax base to calculate the amount of tax, and its nature is distinct, so the tax rate is stipulated by law, but the standard rate of income is delegated to the discretion of the tax authorities, so the standard rate of income is not in violation of the principle of no taxation without law, and in this case, the two standard rate of income is not in violation of the principle of no taxation without law, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the determination of estimated tax amount

3. Inasmuch as each taxation by the Defendant against the Plaintiff was contrary to the Framework Act on National Taxes, even if the lower court did not make a judgment on this point, it is unreasonable to discuss that the judgment did not affect the conclusion of the judgment

4. In addition, when the court below acknowledged the facts stated in the reasons for the judgment, etc. or rejected the plaintiff's assertion, the court below's measures are legitimate, and since the original judgment does not contain any errors in documentary evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, it is without merit.

5 points 5. The defendant's argument about the defendant's failure to notify the plaintiff is a new argument that is not asserted in the original trial, so it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. This is without merit.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Dra-ro (Presiding Judge)