Whether it is reasonable for the estimation method under Article 69 (1) 4 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act by the estimation method under the standard rate of income under the Income Tax Act.

Even if it is inevitable to determine the tax base and the amount of value-added tax by estimation under Article 21(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act, the method under any of the subparagraphs of Article 69(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be followed pursuant to Article 21(2) of the same Act. If the tax authority investigates the total expenses of taxpayers and estimated sales based on the income standard rate (the standard income rate after the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 13802 of Dec. 31, 1992) determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, it is difficult to view that it is reasonable to estimate sales by applying the income standard rate to the total expenses of taxpayers as the estimation method under Article 69(3)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, among the estimation method under Article 69(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act,

Article 21(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 69(1)4(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Domin-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Head of Ansan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu37309 delivered on February 1, 1994

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 21(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that even if it is inevitable to determine the tax base and amount of value-added tax by estimation, the method under any of the subparagraphs of Article 69(1) of the Enforcement Decree shall be followed pursuant to Article 21(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the defendant asserts that the tax disposition in this case was lawful because the method of estimation under subparagraph 4(b) was different from that of the tax disposition. Accordingly, according to the above, the "the method of calculation by any of the following criteria determined by the

However, examining the facts, records, and relevant evidence presented by the court below, it cannot be found whether the pertinent expense-related ratio has been determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the commissioner of the competent regional tax office with respect to the Plaintiff’s business type. The court below investigated the Plaintiff’s total expenses and determined by the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, and determined that the Defendant’s calculation of sales based on the income standard rate (the standard income rate after the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 13802, Dec. 31, 1992) constitutes the expense-related ratio. However, it is difficult to view that the tax office’s arbitrary calculation and application ratio is not the expense-related ratio by type of business under the Enforcement Decree of

Nevertheless, the court below's determination that the above method of taxation by the defendant constitutes the estimation method under Article 69 (1) 4 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act cannot be maintained remarkably due to its illegality, and there is a reason to point this out.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)