Whether the omission of sales of finished products can be recognized solely by the fact that the purchase entry of raw and subsidiary materials is omitted.

The mere fact that the purchase keeping of raw and subsidiary materials, such as coffees and coffees, is omitted, is made and sold through the manufacture of cans, coffees, and finished products such as wals and coffees, but the entry is omitted, and the amount omitted in sales shall not be included in the calculation of earnings.

Article 50 of the Corporate Tax Act

Sco Co., Ltd.

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Each disposition of imposition of corporate tax, value-added tax, special consumption tax, and defense tax stated in the separate taxation list against the plaintiff on October 17, 1986 by the defendant, and each disposition of imposition of Class A earned income tax, and defense tax stated in the same list against the plaintiff on November 19 of the same year shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The tax amount of Gap's 1, 2, 22 through 24, and Eul's 2-1 through 6, 17, 18, and Eul's 4-1, 5-1, 7-1, 8-2, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 7-1, 9-4, 9-1, 97-1, 16-1, 97-1, 97, 97-1, 9-1, 16-1, 97, 97-1, 16-1, 97, 97-1, 97, 16-1, 30-1, 97, 97-1, 97, 16-1, 97, 1984, 197, 1984, 197, 197, 197

2. As to the allegation that the above taxation disposition was lawful on the ground of the above taxation grounds and the relevant laws, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff company omitted the purchase entry, first, 37,140 g of 1984 and 13,92 g of 1985 that the non-party 1, the representative director of the above company borrowed 37,50 g of 1985 g of 197 and sold it on its own account without any evidence that the plaintiff company purchased 350,190 g of 97 g of 198 g of 197 g of 1987 g of 1987 g of 197 g of 1987 g of 197 g of 1984 g of 197 g of 37 g of 1984 g of 197 g of 197 g of 1984 g of 1985 g of g of 197 g of c of c of 197

Therefore, as to the above first argument of the plaintiff, comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the argument in the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 18-2 through 17, Eul evidence No. 19-2 through 11, Eul evidence No. 20-2 through 11, and Eul evidence No. 20-11, the plaintiff company purchased in 1984 by the plaintiff company and 350,190 purchase books were omitted and the plaintiff company imported in the name of the plaintiff company were omitted with 37,140k g of 1984 and 13,92k g of 1985, but the above fact was found to have omitted the purchase records of mission or coffee No. 1984 and 333,133 were additionally sold in 1985 and 11,53 g of wals and wals and wals and wals and wals are not justified.

As to the plaintiff's second assertion, considering the above statement Nos. 16, 16-15 of Eul evidence No. 3-15 of the above evidence No. 2 and testimony of E. 27, the defendant was merely 104,781,788 of the plaintiff company's sales revenue of 1983 and 63,849,829 of the plaintiff company's 1984's sales revenue were omitted, and the defendant did not present sufficient information about the plaintiff's representative director's 20-2's sales revenue without submitting evidence No. 29 of the above evidence No. 27 of the above evidence No. 27 of the plaintiff company's 2 of the above evidence No. 3 of the 1984 and the above evidence No. 2 of the 2 of the 1983 evidence No. 9 of the 2 of the plaintiff company's 2 of the above evidence No. 1 of the 2 of the 2 of the 2 of the 1982 of the evidence No.

Article 17 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that an entrepreneur who runs a manufacturing business may deduct an amount calculated under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree from an input tax if the supply of goods manufactured or processed with agricultural products, livestock products, etc. supplied with the exemption of value-added tax is imposed. Accordingly, Article 62 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that an amount calculated by multiplying the value of the agricultural products, etc. supplied with the exemption of value-added tax by type of business and by the rate as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy shall be deducted from the input tax amount. The main sentence of Article 19 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance No. 1609 of May 1, 1984), which is the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, shall be 10/110 (5/105 if the goods are supplied for export) of the above Enforcement Rule, and the above proviso shall not apply to the manufacturing business of goods for which the exemption rate of input tax under the proviso of Article 17 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act shall not apply to the above input tax amount.

3. If so, each disposition of imposition of corporate tax, value-added tax, special consumption tax, defense tax, and Class-A income tax in the year 1984 by omitting the above purchase entry is unlawful because the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the sales entry of KRW 70,719,80 in the year 1985, and KRW 37,448,05 in the year 1983 was omitted. In addition, each of the product sales of KRW 104,781,78 in the year 1983, and KRW 63,849,829 in the year 1984 is based on the premise that each of the product sales of KRW 63,849,829 in the year 1983 was omitted. It is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant who lost the lawsuit costs.

Judges Cho Jae-won (Presiding Judge)