The case which has taken pride in the original judgment that the Commissioner of the National Tax Service determined the estimation decision on the total amount of sales by category of business is justifiable.

As a result of the investigation of the distribution process conducted by the tax authority, since 84.16% (74.08% compared to the transaction amount) of the tax invoices issued by the taxpayer was confirmed to have been issued differently from the actual sales place in calculating the tax base, the tax authority's estimation method of calculating sales by applying 1.9%, which is the gross profit rate determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for each type of business, on the ground that the important parts of the tax invoices, account books, and other documents were false, and the tax authority's estimation method is reasonable and reasonable as stipulated in Article 69.1.4 (d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Calculation of Sales Amount, and the difference between the initial return and the sales amount is deemed to be reasonable and reasonable, and the sales incentive received by the taxpayer cannot be estimated for the above period based on the sales profit rate of the taxpayer calculated by the tax invoice with the exception of the total sales revenue amount identified by the false tax invoice, and the tax authority's estimation method cannot be deemed to be more appropriate than the estimate method of the taxpayer's estimation method.

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

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu24 delivered on September 9, 1986 (Gong1986, 1319) Supreme Court Decision 86Nu24 delivered on August 18, 1987

Note Distribution Co., Ltd. (Attorney Hong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Eastern Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu9155 delivered on March 23, 1995

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined the sales of this case by applying the tax invoice, account books, and other evidence as necessary for calculating the tax base on November 5, 1990 and considering the difference between the original reported sales and the sales omitted, and found that the plaintiff, a corporation which is engaged in wholesale sales business from the date of opening business to December 31, 1992, paid the value-added tax, corporate tax, and Class A labor income tax until December 31, 1992. As a result of the investigation of the distribution process conducted by the defendant, 84.16% (74.08% compared to the transaction amount) of the tax invoice issued by the plaintiff was issued differently from the actual sales place. Thus, the court below's determination that the tax invoice, account books, and other evidence were false, and thus, did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the sales rate of the plaintiff's estimate, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that the remaining sales rate of the plaintiff's total sales amount was no more reasonable and reasonable.

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 on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)