(a) The burden of proving the legitimacy of the estimated taxation;

(b) court's assistance in cases where the legality of the estimated taxation is not established.

(a) In the case of estimated taxation, the method and content of the estimation should be reasonable and reasonable to reflect the actual value nearest to the truth, and in the case of a dispute over the legality of such estimated taxation, the burden of proof of its rationality and feasibility shall be borne by the tax authority.

B. If the tax authority failed to prove that its estimation method and content are reasonable and reasonable in a lawsuit (except in the case of presenting and proving separate estimation methods that are reasonable and reasonable), the court has no choice but to revoke the taxation of the estimated tax imposed by the tax authority in its entirety because it was unlawful, and the court does not have the duty to calculate the reasonable tax amount to be imposed by finding ex officio reasonable and reasonable estimation methods.

Article 21(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 69 of the Enforcement Decree thereof

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu210 Decided May 29, 1984; 85Nu967 Decided September 9, 1986; b. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu62 Decided July 9, 1985; 85Nu967 Decided September 9, 1986

[Judgment of the court below]

the director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1026 delivered on February 11, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

As to ground of appeal No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, under Article 50 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, the "market price" stipulated in Article 13 (1) 3 of the Value-Added Tax Act means the price formed in normal transactions with the business operator and unrelated parties. Thus, in this case where the plaintiff owns 60% of the shares of the non-party company and is in a special relationship with the non-party company, the court below determined that the price of the rent for the lease of the land of this case constitutes a normal transaction with the non-party company under Article 50 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and if it cannot be confirmed, it should be calculated by one of the estimated methods stipulated in Article 69 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, whichever is the standard market price for the building of this case, and the amount of rent for the building of this case should be calculated by dividing the total amount of rent for the building of this case into the total amount of the building of this case after the completion of the building of this case.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the rules of evidence or the incomplete hearing, nor there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason for the argument.

As to ground of appeal No. 2

In the case of estimated taxation, the method and content of the estimation must be reasonable and reasonable so as to reflect the actual amount close to the truth, and in the case where the legitimacy and validity of the estimation is disputed, the burden of proving its rationality and validity exists to the defendant who is the tax authority (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu210, May 29, 1984). If the defendant fails to prove his method and content of the estimation in the lawsuit, that it is reasonable and reasonable (excluding the case where the defendant presents a separate method of estimation that is reasonable and reasonable and reasonable, and it is proved it), the court should have no choice but to cancel it in its entirety because the defendant's estimated taxation was unlawful, and the court should not have the duty to calculate the reasonable tax amount by finding the method of estimation that is reasonable and reasonable, and it is not reasonable for the party member (see Supreme Court Decisions 82Nu62, Jul. 9, 1985; 85Nu967, Sep. 9, 1986).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)