(a) Validity of a taxpayer's income declaration;

(b) Whether details of the final return of value-added tax filed differently from the fact can be used as data for determining income tax base.

A. Under our legal system that adopts the levy and payment system with respect to income tax, a return of income amount to be filed by a taxpayer is only one reference material when the tax authorities impose and impose income tax, but does not take any speed.

B. In determining income tax assessment standards, the details of the final return of value-added tax should be accepted as valuable taxation data, barring special circumstances. However, if the details of the final return of value-added tax are different from the facts according to the expectation and table of expectation of the National Tax Service according to the direction of the competent tax office, it shall not

(b)Article 100 of the Income Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu247 delivered on July 23, 1985, 86Nu566 delivered on March 10, 1987

Plaintiff

Head of Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu771 delivered on February 27, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers.

1. Under our legal system adopting the levy and payment system with respect to income tax, a return of income amount by a taxpayer is only one reference material when the tax office imposes the income tax (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu566 delivered on March 10, 1987), and it does not have any binding force. In addition, in determining the income tax base, unless there are special circumstances, the final return of value-added tax should be accepted as a valuable taxation material. However, if the details of the final return of value-added tax are different from the facts according to the expectation and table of the National Tax Service according to the instructions of the competent tax office, it shall not be considered as reference material to determine the income tax base (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu859 delivered on March 10, 1987).

2. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff's wife non-party 1 was 49 square meters of the underground room of the building located in Jongno-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) from June 10, 1983 to June 10, 1985 and leased 300,000 won of deposit money or monthly rent to non-party 2 or non-party 3, and determined that the plaintiff's tax base was 3,00,000 won for the first period of 1984, 3,150,000 won for the second period of 1984 and 3,00,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the second period of 1985, 2,70,000 won for the second period of 300,000 won for the above real estate rent and 300,000 won for each reported real estate rent and 300,000 won for the above real estate rent.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)