The legality of the disposition of imposition such as global income tax, etc. by applying the standard rate of income by type of business and by estimating the amount of business income on the estimated total sales based on the 3-day witness inspection income;

In conducting a tax investigation on a business establishment, it is illegal to estimate the business income by applying the standard rate of income for each type of business to the estimated total sales for the reason that there is an omission in entry by estimating the daily average sales by the method of multiplying the total daily sales by the total number of business days based on the admission investigation income for three days, and to impose a global income tax, etc. on the basis of this, it is illegal to impose a global income tax.

Article 120 of the Income Tax Act

[Judgment of the court below]

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu849 delivered on December 17, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the records, the tax disposition against the plaintiff was imposed and collected on the plaintiff on the basis of additional global income tax and defense tax on the basis of the plaintiff's total sales revenue, including omitted sales, under the premise that the plaintiff had omitted sales from 347,636,170 won as a result of the tax investigation conducted for 1981 by selling gold 623,898,634 won in the year 198 while operating the non-party and the non-party ○○ ○ ○○ Pool, but the plaintiff had failed to enter the above 347,636,170 won in the account book. The court below determined that the above tax disposition on the plaintiff's income by calculating business income by applying the standard income ratio for each type of business, including omitted sales, and that the above additional gross revenue and defense tax imposed and collected on the plaintiff's additional global income tax and defense tax on the basis of the omitted sales amount, and that the court below's judgment was justified by forcing the plaintiff and the employees to enter the above 376060 days in the account book and average daily sales revenue for 3 days.

The theory of lawsuit is not acceptable, based on the fact that the decision of estimation is valid on the premise that the above decision of omission in sales was legitimate, on the premise that the decision of omission in sales was made on the premise that the decision of omission in sales was made on the premise that the decision of omission in sales was made on the premise that the decision of omission in sales was made on the premise that the decision of estimation was made on the basis of the fact that it was duly established by the court below. The precedents cited by the theory are inappropriate in this case. In addition, the conclusion

The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the circumstances such as the tax authority's relation to the denial of receipt without filing a voluntary report on its reason, and the relation to the tax authority's deception or power to make a request for examination except for the reported portion in the preceding trial proceedings. However, the report by the taxpayer is not only a reference material to impose a tax but also a reference material to bind the person liable for tax payment. The argument is groundless.

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

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)