In the final return of the tax base of a person subject to the determination of global income tax on the global income tax, whether the amount of income can be determined or corrected by on-site investigation (affirmative)

Even if a person determined to conduct a written investigation under Article 119 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990) files a final return on the tax base of global income tax with an adjusted account statement prepared by a certified public accountant or a certified tax accountant, if the amount of income is not included in the details of the return and is omitted from the beginning, the said tax base and tax amount may be determined or corrected

Articles 118 (see current Article 80(3)), 119(1), and 127 (see current Article 80(2)) of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 4281, Dec. 31, 1990);

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu459 delivered on December 10, 1985 (Gong1986, 257) Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4840 Delivered on January 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 574) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1045 Delivered on June 14, 1991 (Gong1991, 1955), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu696 Decided September 5, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3438)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of the tax office;

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu34014 delivered on October 9, 1996

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

First, the third point is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the deceased non-party, who was operating a private teaching institute as the decedent of the plaintiffs, determined the tax base and tax amount of each year by the method of a field investigation deducting necessary expenses from the total amount of income of each year of the plaintiffs, and determined that the defendant did not make a false investigation or sales of the revenue amount in 1989, but did not do so objectively because it did not make an on-site investigation or an on-site investigation but did not make an on-site investigation or an on-site investigation, if a tax accountant, etc. prepared an on-site investigation report accompanied by an adjusted statement attached to the adjusted statement under Article 119 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990), and that such a report was filed by a tax accountant at the time of filing the final tax base return for global income tax for 199 and 190.

However, even if a person subject to a written investigation determination under Article 119 of the Income Tax Act files a final return on the tax base of global income tax with an adjusted account statement prepared by a certified public accountant or a certified tax accountant, if the amount of income is not included in the details of the return and is omitted from the beginning, the said tax base and tax amount may be determined or corrected by the on-site investigation or the estimated investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu1045, Jun. 14, 1991; 95Nu696, Sept. 5, 19

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the defendant deemed that there was an omission in the return other than the original report amount, and as a result of the on-site investigation, the defendant made an on-site investigation by deeming that there was an omission in the return amount from the deposit account in the name of the non-party in 1989, the amount of KRW 138,359,184, and KRW 208,768,738, which was additionally revealed in the year 190, respectively, was omitted from the private teaching institute income amount. Accordingly, the plaintiffs asserted that the amount of KRW 55,612,792,792, and KRW 100,528,000 from the non-party's personal transaction in the year 1989, even if deducted, the amount of KRW 82,746,392, and KRW 240,738,000 from the date of the report shall not be included in the grounds for omission.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds on which the instant taxation disposition was allowed to make a field investigation decision without any grounds on which the Defendant could make a field investigation decision, or by failing to exhaust sufficient deliberation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds of appeal assigning this error are with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)