(a) The burden of proving the legitimacy of the estimated taxation;

B. The court's measures where the tax authority fails to prove the legality of the estimated taxation

A. If there are reasons under Article 21(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 120(1) of the Income Tax Act, and Article 169(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the government shall be able to impose the estimated taxation, but the method and contents of the estimation shall be reasonable and reasonable to reflect the actual amount near the truth. If there is a dispute over the legality of such estimated taxation, the burden of proving its rationality and feasibility shall be borne by the tax authority.

B. If the tax authority fails to prove that the method and content of the estimation in a lawsuit are reasonable and reasonable, the court cannot revoke the taxation of the estimation in its entirety on the ground that the taxation of the estimation was unlawful, and the court is not obliged to identify ex officio and calculate the reasonable tax amount.

Article 21 (2) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 120 (1) of the Income Tax Act, and Article 169 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu210 Decided May 29, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu62 Decided July 9, 1985

Plaintiff

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu111 delivered on November 20, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) the Plaintiff, based on macro evidence, obtained permission from the Do governor to gather natural rocks (500 cubic meters from May 30, 1983 to July 11 of the same year) from the Cheongyang-gun ( Address omitted) and collected natural rocks at 500 cubic meters (125 minutes, converted into the first one per four cubic meters), and disposed of 292 cubic meters (73 minutes), and the Defendant did not make business registration under Article 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act, but did not keep books under Article 31 of the same Act, Article 79 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and that the Plaintiff’s ordinary sale price from the Seoul Regional Tax Office’s estimation of the natural stone gathering business operator’s estimation from the Seoul Regional Tax Office to the 17th price of the said natural stone gathering business operator’s price was unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s general sale price of the above 17th price of the said natural stone.

2. If there are reasons under Article 21 (2) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 120 (1) of the Income Tax Act, and Article 169 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Government may impose the estimated tax under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, or the method and contents of the estimation must be reasonable and reasonable to reflect the actual amount close to the truth. If there is a dispute over the legitimacy of the estimated tax, the burden of proving its rationality and feasibility lies on the defendant who is the tax authority (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu210 delivered on May 29, 1984). Thus, if the defendant fails to prove that his estimate method and contents are reasonable and reasonable in the lawsuit (excluding the case where it presents separate and reasonable estimate methods and proves them), the court cannot revoke the assessment in whole by the defendant, and it is reasonable and reasonable to determine that the defendant's disposition of calculating the total amount of the tax in Seoul is not related to the above imposition of the estimated tax in whole or in part, and it is not related to the defendant's duty to calculate the above Seoul.

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

Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)