[1] Whether a measure to determine the tax base by mixing a single tax object with a field investigation and a separate investigation by estimation (negative)

[2] The case dismissing the appeal in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, since part of the sales omission portion and the sales volume of the return are calculated by estimation method, and the remainder is unlawful in the calculation of each tax base by field investigation, but the actual sales unit price exceeds the sales unit price calculated by estimation method, and thus the actual sales unit price

[1] The determination of the tax base by mixing a single tax object with a field investigation and a separate estimate investigation is not a taxation method recognized by the pertinent laws such as the Corporate Tax Act and the Value-Added Tax Act

[2] The case dismissing the appeal in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration as the court below's measure that calculated each tax base by means of a field investigation is unlawful, but since the actual unit price exceeds the unit price of sales calculated by the estimation method, the actual unit price of sales exceeds the unit price of sales calculated by the estimation method

[1] Article 21 (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5032 of Dec. 29, 1995), Article 69 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14863 of Dec. 30, 1995) / [2] Article 21 (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5032 of Dec. 29, 1995), Article 69 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14863 of Dec. 30, 1995), Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 385 and 395 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 78Nu381 delivered on December 26, 1978 (Gong1979, 11652), Supreme Court Decision 84Nu216 delivered on March 25, 1986 (Gong1986, 712), Supreme Court Decision 88Nu8029, 8036 delivered on June 27, 198 (Gong1989, 1182), Supreme Court Decision 89Nu508 delivered on January 23, 1990 (Gong190Sang, 569), Supreme Court Decision 88Nu637 delivered on February 27, 199 (Gong190, 807) and Supreme Court Decision 90Nu31940 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong1990, 1940).

South Korean Enterprise (Attorney Kim Ba-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Article 20 (Before Correction of Head of Tax Office)

Busan High Court Decision 97Gu8311 delivered on July 30, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just for the court below to find that the plaintiff omitted in the return of the second-term value-added tax for the year 1994 and the pro rata corporate tax for the business year 1994 even though the plaintiff purchased 4,390,310 kilograms from October 194 to December 31, 199 and sold it to others, and there is no error of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence. The grounds for appeal as to this point are not acceptable.

2. Determination on grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since there is no evidence to find that the sales unit price of the above scrap metal was at least 4,390,310 kilograms per kilogramme in 194, at least 100 won per kilogramme, the court below determined that the defendant calculated the sales unit price of the above scrap metal as at least 100 won by estimation if there is no evidence to calculate the tax base. If the plaintiff engages in wholesale retail business as at December 30, 1995, the court below calculated the tax base based on the above sales unit price of the above 1,50 won by calculating the sales unit price of the above scrap boiler at least 1,000 won by 1,00 won per kilogrammeme, 3,634,60 kilograms per 9,60 kilograms per 1,000 won per kilogrammeme and 1,57,000 won per 9,000 won per 1,54,000 kilograms per kilogramme, and the above tax base should also be calculated based on the sales unit price of the above 1, 1,5,57,05.

The determination of the tax base is not a taxation method recognized by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Corporate Tax Act and the Value-Added Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 78Nu381, Dec. 26, 1978; 90Nu3140, May 12, 1992). As stated in its reasoning, the lower court erred by calculating each tax base by the method of the on-site investigation as to the sales revenue of the second term portion in 1994; 4,390 kilograms of the second term portion in 1994; and 650,480 kilograms of the first term portion in 195; and 1,14,750 kilograms of the tank boiler and the first term portion in 1955.

(1) Subparagraph 15-3 (Sales Contract) is prepared by omitting the plaintiff's transaction stages from the steel industry to the stock company. According to the above, it may be known that the sales unit price of the steel industry 4,390,310 kilograms is at least 10 won per 194, and (2) the original judgment of the court below is modified under paragraph (3) (A) of the attached Table 1995, (6) 3, 40-1, 40-1, 96-16-1, 40-1, 96-14, 30-1, 94-2, 40-1, 96-14, 97-14, 94-1, 196-2, and 94-1, 94, 196-2, and 30-1, 94, 196-2, and 54, respectively, for the remaining amount of sale and purchase of the steel industry.

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

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)