The method of determining the total income and income amount by the estimated survey is appropriate.

The account books submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as the basic account books kept and kept as the basis for revenue and expenses related to the business: Provided, That it is unlawful to estimate the gross income calculated based on the business expenses, and to recognize only the amount reported by the Plaintiff as necessary expenses therefor.

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

1. The part that exceeds KRW 15,880,100 among the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 29,684,750 against the Plaintiff on December 16, 1992 is revoked. 2. The remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed. 3. One half of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

1. Details of the instant taxation disposition

원고는 ㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 64의 13에서 ㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇ라는 상호의 미술학원을 운영하고 있던 중, 1992. 5. 종합소득세신고시에 위 미술학원 운영으로 인한 1991년도 총수입금액을 금62,710,000원, 필요운영경비를 금 45,765,944원, 사업소득금액을 금16,944,056원으로 신고하였으나, 피고는 이를 받아들이지 아니하고 추계조사결정의 방법에 의하여 원고의 총수입금액을 금 117,140,000원, 사업소득금액을 금71,374,056원으로 결정하여 1992. 12. 16. 원고에 대하여 종합소득세 금29,684,750원을 부과 고지한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.

2. The illegality of the instant taxation disposition

(1) Relevant statutes

Article 120 (1) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4520 of Dec. 8, 1992; hereinafter the same) provides that the Government shall investigate and determine the tax base and tax amount by type of business only when the determination cannot be made pursuant to the provisions of Articles 117 through 119 for obvious objective reasons prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 169 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13739 of Oct. 7, 1992; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the clear objective reason under the Presidential Decree refers to the following: (a) there is no necessary account books and documentary evidence in calculating the tax base or there is no material part, or (b) there is no clear reason that the contents of entry are false or false facilities, employees, raw materials, products, market prices, and charges, and (c) there is a provision that the contents of entry are the methods of investigation into the quantity of the original entry and it is clear that it is the content of the entry:

In addition, Article 114-2 (2) of the Act provides that the provisions of Articles 117 through 120 of the Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the investigation and determination of the total income amount under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and the provisions of Articles 159 (6) of the Enforcement Decree shall apply mutatis mutandis to the investigation and determination of the public interest under the provisions of Article 114-2 (2) of the Act: Provided, That in case of making a decision of the estimation by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 169 (2), the method of calculating the cost by the "ratio of the cost determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the director of the regional tax office by type of business" under subparagraph 4 (b), while it is deemed that the method of calculating the cost by the estimation method is the most appropriate among the following subparagraphs:

First of all, while operating the above art education institute, the Plaintiff was keeping the record of the collection of tuition fees in 191, the applicant for attendance, the attendance book, etc., and presented it to the tax official who was on-site investigation on January 16, 1992, and prepared and issued a certificate of total income and necessary operating expenses (A evidence 4-1, 2). On May 192, 192, the Plaintiff faithfully submitted a global income tax report, and submitted the record of the collection of tuition fees and the record of the president and the receipt (A evidence 5, 6, 7). Accordingly, the Defendant investigated the amount of total income and the tax base and the amount by estimation method despite the fact that the Plaintiff could investigate and determine the total amount of income, etc. of the Plaintiff, which was unlawful because it did not meet the requirements for the determination of estimation investigation.

살피건대, 증인 구ㅇㅇ의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑제8호증의 2의 기재와 같은 증인의 증언 및 변론의 전취지에 의하면, 세무공무원인 소외 구ㅇㅇ가 1992. 3. 26. 위 미술학원에 출장하여 원고의 1991년도의 총수입금액을 실지 조사하려 하였으나, 원고는 임대료, 관리비, 전기료 등에 관한 세금계산서 12매와 광고료지출영수증 6매만을 제시하였을 뿐, 수강료징수현황표 수강증발급대장, 수강생출석부 등 수입금액 및 제경비지출의 근거가 되는 기초장부는 없다고 하면서 이를 제시하지 아니하였고, 위 세금계산서 12매와 영수증 6매 외에는 다른 수 강증발급대장이나 출석부 등 기장을 한 바 없다는 취지의 무기장확인서(을제5호증)를 작성하여준 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 이와 다른 취지의 증인 김ㅇㅇ, 은ㅇ의 각 증언은 믿지 아니한다.

위 인정사실에 비추어보면 원고가 제출한 수강료징수현황표(갑제5호증의 1 내지 4)는 원고가 과세기간동안 계속하여 위 미술학원에서 비치, 기장하여온 장부라고 볼 수 없어 총수입금액이나 과세표준을 계산함에 필요한 장부라고 볼 수 없고, 원장(갑제6호증의 1 내지 10)은 위 증인 김ㅇㅇ, 은ㅇ의 각 증언에 의하더라도 원고로부터 세무기장대리를 위임받은 세무사 김ㅇㅇ의 종업원이 종합소득세 신고를 위하여 신고금액에 맞추어 사후에 작성한 것에 불과하며, 출금전표 등(갑제7호증의 1 내지 174)은 그 대부분이 위 세무사의 종업원이 원고의 소득세신고금액에 맞추어 사후에 임의로 작성한 입금전표와 출금전표 등인 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 이는 어느 것이나 과세표준 또는 총수입금액을 계산함에 있어서 필요한 장부나 증빙서류에 해당한다고 할 수 없다.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed unlawful for the Defendant to investigate and determine the Plaintiff’s total amount of income and tax based on the estimation method.

(3) Illegality of determination of tax amount

나아가, 을제1, 2호증의 기재와 증인 구ㅇㅇ의 증언에 의하면, 피고는 원고에 대한 이 사건 종합소득세액을 추계방법에 의하여 조사결정함에 있어 원고로 하여 금 위 미술학원에 운영비용을 진술하게 하여 1991년도 사업장운영추정비용을 금69,347,000원으로 산출하고, 그 금액으로부터 소득표준을(40.8퍼센트)을 기초로 역산하여 총수입금액을 금117,140,000원 [69,347,000원 / (1-0.408)] 으로 결정한 후, 원고의 사업소득금액을 정함에 있어서는 원고가 당초 신고한 사업소득금액인 금16,944,056원에다가 신고누락액 금54,430,000원(117,140,000원 - 62,710,000원)을 합산한 금71,374,056원으로 인정하고 이에 따라 원고에 대한 종합소득세액을 결정한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

However, inasmuch as the Defendant recognized the Plaintiff’s KRW 69,347,00 as the necessary expenses for the operation of the Plaintiff’s Institute of Art, and based on the income standard, the amount of gross income is estimated to be KRW 117,140,000 according to the income standard, and the calculation of the amount of income therefrom should also be based on the income standard (if so, it would be the same result as the amount of gross income calculated by deducting KRW 69,347,00 from the necessary expenses as the necessary expenses.) In the calculation method at the Defendant’s choice, the Plaintiff’s gross income amount would not necessarily be the necessary expenses that were deducted from the Plaintiff’s determination of the estimated expenses based on the said estimated expenses, but should be deemed to be unlawful.

Therefore, the necessary expenses of the above workplace are calculated as the above 69,347,00 won calculated by the Defendant’s estimate and the reasonable global income tax amount against the Plaintiff is calculated as KRW 15,880,100 as shown in the separate sheet. Thus, the part exceeding the above amount among the instant taxation disposition is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the portion exceeding KRW 15,880,100 among the instant taxation disposition is revoked, and the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.