Whether a subsequent decision on re-determination of increase is unlawful after a written investigation is made.

Even after the tax authority imposed a tax by a written investigation decision, if the amount of revenue is not included in the reported matters and is omitted from the beginning, the tax authority may investigate it and make a decision of increase.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

갑 제1호증의 1, 2, 을 제1, 2호증의 각 1, 2, 3의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 모아보면, 원고는 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇㅇ의 8에서 ㅇㅇ식육점이라는 상호로 식육도소매업을 하는 사업자로서 피고에 대하여 1990년도의 총수입금액이 금 156,185,300원, 소득금액이 금 9,584,300원, 1991년도의 총소득금액이 금 123,296,200원, 소득금액이 금 7,028,048원이라고 서면신고를 하자 피고가 이를 그대로 받아들여 1990년도 귀속 종합소득세로 금 458,271원, 1991년도 귀속 종합소득세로 금 140,762원을 각 부과한 사실, 그런데 피고는 위와 같은 부과처분이 있은 후에 소외 성명불상자로부터 원고에 대한 탈세제보를 받고 1993. 3.경 피고소속직원인 소외 정ㅇㅇ과 강ㅇㅇ로 하여금 원고가 경영하는 ㅇㅇ식육점에 가서 그곳에 비치된 수입금액 일기장을 조사하도록 하게 한 결과 당초 원고가 신고한 내용과는 달리 1990년도의 총수입금액이 금 207,059,000원, 1991년도의 총수입금액이 금 171,633,000원에 이르른 사실을 확인하고, 1993. 6. 16. 원고에 대하여 위와 같이 확인된 총수입금액을 기초로 증액경정결정을 한 다음 기납부세액을 공제한 청구취지 기재 각 세금을 부과한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고, 달리 반증이 없다.

As to this, the plaintiff argued that the disposition of this case by the defendant violates the basic taxation principle under the Framework Act on National Taxes and it should be revoked because it goes beyond the limit of correction under the Income Tax Act, and it should be revoked illegally because the defendant violated the basic taxation principle under the Income Tax Act and goes beyond the limit of correction under the Article 127 through 120 of the Income Tax Act, although the defendant conducted a tax investigation on the ground that there was a tax evasion report by the plaintiff's initial written decision based on the plaintiff's written decision, and then made a correction of the tax amount by making a tax investigation on the ground that there was a tax evasion report, but the tax investigation cannot be conducted on the ground that there was no obvious error or omission in the original tax return. Thus, if the plaintiff finds that the tax base and tax amount cannot be determined or that there was an omission or error after the determination, the government shall immediately investigate the tax base and tax amount, and in light of the purport of the above provision, Article 119 of the Income Tax Act, Article 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act should not be included in the tax return after the tax investigation.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

December 1, 1994