A. Whether the provisions of Article 169-2 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9229 of December 30, 1978) are invalid because it goes against the Income Tax Act (negative)

B. The burden of proving the legality of the estimated taxation

(c) whether the estimated income amount has been determined solely on the basis of the fact that it was determined by the estimation for three years is appropriate for measures assessed by estimation by the highest rate prescribed by the standard income rate;

A. The reason for the differential rate decision listed in Article 169-2 subparagraph 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (the Presidential Decree No. 9229 of Dec. 30, 1978) is shown to be listed in the standards to ensure the accuracy of the determination of the income amount to the relevant enterprise, and cannot be deemed to be a reason which is not entirely unrelated to the reflection of the actual income amount. Thus, it cannot be deemed to exceed the standard for determining the standard for determining the income rate by type of business delegated by the Income Tax Act. Thus, the above provision itself, which provides for the estimation of the income amount by setting a different classification in consideration of the above

B. The estimated taxation under Article 33(4) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended before December 28, 1979) is exceptionally recognized only when it cannot be imposed by the basis taxation, and even if the estimated taxation is recognized by the estimation, it should be reasonable and reasonable to the extent that the method and content of the estimation are deemed to have reflected the income amount near the truth as it is, and if such estimation is disputed, the burden of proving the reasonableness and validity of the above estimated taxation shall be borne by the tax authority.

C. The mere fact that the Plaintiff (a domestic corporation operating a driving subsidy business) was not equipped with evidence of his loss for three consecutive years including the pertinent year as a person liable for bookkeeping, and received the estimation of corporate tax by deeming the Plaintiff’s income amount as a person liable for an income-based verification agent under the income-based income ratio set by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and the Plaintiff’s estimated taxation measures based on the amount calculated based on the amount calculated according to 46.5%, which is the higher income rate in the income-based income-based vehicle admission fee and rental business, are unreasonable and unreasonable, and is unlawful.

(a) Articles 120 and 124 of the Income Tax Act, and Article 169-2 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act;

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu244 delivered on September 14, 1982

Attorney Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu753 delivered on July 9, 1981

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. Under Articles 120 and 124 of the Income Tax Act, the standard rate of income by type of business determined by the Government pursuant to the provisions of Articles 120 and 124 of the Income Tax Act is a method of estimation and investigation in cases where there is no book and documentary evidence necessary for the calculation of tax base and amount of tax or where it is impossible to grasp the actual amount of income because the details are incomplete or false. Thus, in determining the standard of income by type of business under the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, it would be in violation of the purport of the above provisions of the Income Tax Act to allow it to be reflected in the actual amount of income as possible. However, it is difficult to conclude that the Commissioner of the National Tax Service may determine the standard of income by type of business which provides that the basic rate of income by type of business may be adjusted to an average company according to good faith such as withholding, collecting transactions, reporting data, and training transactions for the pertinent taxable period, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the above standard of income rate is inconsistent with the above provision of Article 189-2 of the Income Tax Act.

2. The estimated taxation under Article 33 (4) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended before December 28, 1979) is exceptionally recognized only when necessary account books or documentary evidence is not available in calculating the tax base and tax amount, or when it is impossible to impose tax by the basis taxation because the important parts are incomplete or false, and even in a case where the estimated taxation is recognized, the method and content of the estimation must be reasonable and reasonable to the extent that it is recognized to have reflected the income loss near the truth as it is, and as long as such, the legitimacy and validity of the estimated taxation are disputed, the burden of proving the reasonableness and validity of the estimated taxation as mentioned above shall be borne by the defendant who is the tax authority (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu36, Sep. 14, 1982).

However, in its reasoning, the court below recognized that, as a domestic corporation that runs a transportation subsidy business with the rent of trucking 1979 March 2, 1979, the amount of business profit is KRW 34,87,165, and the amount of tax base after deducting necessary expenses and other deductible expenses is KRW 7,378,585, and paid a reasonable amount of corporate tax and defense tax to the plaintiff, as a result of its tax investigation conducted on the plaintiff, it is difficult to determine that the amount of tax base for the year 1978, which is the tax base for the above 200,000, which is the reasonable rate of tax base for the year 1978, as well as the amount of tax base for the year 1980, which is the reasonable rate of tax base for the above 30,000,000,000,000 won under the provision of the Corporate Tax Act, it is difficult to determine the amount of tax base for the corporate tax imposed on the plaintiff.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)