(a) Whether Article 169-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9229, Dec. 30, 1978) shall apply to the portion of income in 1978 (affirmative);

B. The burden of proving the legality of the estimated taxation

(c) whether measures are taken by estimating the actual income amount of a disguised income earner by the average income share of the standard income level of an enterprise;

(d) If, at any time, a high-level differential rate was applied when income is determined, but no provision concerning the rate is later applicable, a correction is required at the basic rate when the determination of a regular amount is made (

(a) If there are grounds for applying the differential rate prescribed in Article 169-2(2) of the former Income Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9229, Dec. 30, 1978) to the portion of the income for the year 1978, which was the first reported after January 1, 1979, under Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the said differential rate may be applied in accordance with Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree.

B. The estimated taxation under Article 120 of the Income Tax Act is exceptionally acknowledged in cases where there is no tax base and documentary evidence of a taxpayer who is the basis for the determination of the tax base and amount of tax, or where it is impossible to impose tax by the basis of the taxation because the details are incomplete or false. Thus, the estimated taxation cannot be conducted by the method of estimation because it is impossible to investigate the actual amount of tax, as well as where the method and contents of the estimation are reasonable and reasonable to reflect the actual amount of income near the truth. In the event of a dispute over the legality of such estimated taxation, the burden of proof for the reasonableness

C. The measure of estimating that the Plaintiff’s actual income amount falls under the amount of the average company’s standard income, solely based on the fact that the fact that the Plaintiff’s alleged income was discovered in the fact that the deduction of the disguised income amount was solely regulating the disguised income earner without considering at all is unlawful as it lacks rationality and feasibility.

D. Although the Defendant imposed occasional business income tax for the Plaintiff in 1979 and applied a high-level rate in accordance with the standard rate table of income in 1978 as it was not established in the year 1979, if the provisions on high-level rate in the standard rate table of income in 1979 do not exist thereafter, it must be corrected by the basic rate at the time of the determination of the regular rate in 1979.

가. 구 소득세법시행령 (1978.12.30 대통령령 졔9229호) 제169조의2 제2항 , 구 소득세법시행령 부칙 제7조 나.다. 소득세법 제120조 라. 소득세법시행령 제169조의2

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Nu611 delivered on November 10, 1981, 80Nu611 delivered on September 14, 1982, 82Nu36 delivered on September 28, 1982, 82Nu39 delivered on September 28, 1982, 81Nu286 delivered on October 12, 1982, 81Nu244 delivered on September 13, 1983

Plaintiff

Head of Southern District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu583 delivered on August 20, 1981

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding global income tax and defense detailed and disposition in 1978 shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

All remaining appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of the appeal against the dismissed part of the appeal are assessed against each appellant.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1

In addition, Article 17(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the input tax amount shall be the amount calculated by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount for the goods and services supplied by the person himself/herself, and that Article 17(2) provides that the scope of the input tax amount not deducted from the output tax amount under the provisions of paragraph (5) through (2) of the same Article shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree. However, it is clear in light of the provisions of Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act regarding the scope of the input tax amount not deducted under the provisions of paragraph (2) of the same Article, and it is evident that the input tax amount before the registration under Article 17(2)5 of the same Act does not be deducted from the output tax amount. Since the fact that the plaintiff did not make a registration of business under the provisions of Article 5(1) of the same Act is apparent by its own assertion, it is justified in the judgment below that the defendant did not deduct the input tax amount from the output tax amount in the course of imposing the value-added tax in this case.

2. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 2

Article 169-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 929, Dec. 30, 1978; Presidential Decree No. 929) provides that transitional provisions concerning its enforcement shall apply to the first time after January 1, 200, which are the basis for the taxation of this case. The provisions of Article 169-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 929, Dec. 30, 1978; Presidential Decree No. 1. 208. 1. 3. 1. 2. 3. 2. 3. 8. 8. 2. 3. 4. 8. 6. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 8. 2. 3. 4. 2000 . 1. 6. 3. 196 . 1. 3. 2011 . 2011 . 3 . 3. 3. 2. 3. 1978. 20. 2. 2. . 2. 3. 2. . 3. 3. 3. 2. 3. 2. 2. . 3. 2. . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Each reference is respectively.

However, in imposing global income tax for the year 1978 on the Plaintiff, 200% of the highest rate of income-based rate of 1978 applied by the Plaintiff as a disguised income is equivalent to twice the basic rate of income-based income of the average enterprise, even after examining the record, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s income-based income-based income-based income-based measure is reasonable and reasonable, and rather, the above higher rate applied to the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been determined in the purport that the Plaintiff regulates disguised income without considering the actual amount of income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based income-based.

3. Judgment on Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

The judgment of the court below, based on the evidences of the city, found that the ordinary steel board sold by the plaintiff was the goods corresponding to the raw materials or supplementary materials used for steel depth in the manufacture of the sphere type or light, etc., the electrical appliances, and the electrical appliances manufacturer. The purchaser is the electrical appliances manufacturer. The plaintiff's one-time transaction volume of the ordinary steel board sold by the plaintiff 67 times in each business year to the customer is less than 1.5 tons, and the 93.75 tons much, and the plaintiff's business type is determined by the government and the government in 1978, and it is judged that the plaintiff's business type falls under the wholesale business of metal board "the business of selling the manufacturer with a large quantity of goods used as raw materials and supplementary materials for manufacturing, etc." under the income-based standard ratio table, which was enforced in 1978, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the income-based wholesale business.

4. Judgment on Defendant 2’s ground of appeal

In addition, it is argued that Article 169-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that if the standard rate of income for the pertinent taxable year is not established in the general provisions of 1978 on the standard rate of income of an individual entrepreneur, it shall be applied in the immediately preceding year. However, if the standard rate of income for the subsequent year is changed in the general provisions on the standard of income for the corresponding year, it shall be corrected at the time of the determination of the regular rate (the same shall apply to the standard rate of income in 1979). Since the above provision does not provide for a lower rate only in the standard of income in the year 1979, the defendant did not impose the income tax for the year 1979 on the plaintiff, and even if the standard rate of income for the year 1979 was not established in accordance with the standard rate of income for the year 1978, there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principle on the standard of income in the application of the standard of income rate of the plaintiff 197.

5. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding global income tax and defense detailed disposition in the year 1978 is unfair, and the plaintiff's appeal is with merit. Accordingly, this part of the case is reversed and remanded to Seoul High Court. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff and the appeal by the defendant are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges on the part of the appeal dismissed.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)