2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition of imposition by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on November 28, 2009 by the OOOO of global income tax for the year 2006 shall be revoked.

"A. The plaintiff is an operator of a credit business with the trade name "B from February 6, 2003," and the total amount of income accrued in 2005 and 2006 was reported and paid as OOO won and OOOO won." However, on March 29, 2006, the plaintiff transferred the shares of CCC Co., Ltd. acquired OOO won through capital increase with a third party allotment method to DOO won, and on January 13, 2009, reported and paid capital gains tax and securities transaction tax for 2006.

"However, the defendant, however, omitted the amount of income in 2005 and 2006, and ② since the share transaction between the plaintiff and DD is a monetary loan contract, the difference between the plaintiff and DD was an interest income, and on November 28, 2009, the OOOOO won was corrected and notified for the portion attributable to 2005 global income tax in 2006, and the OOOO on 2006 in 206 (hereinafter referred to as the "the initial disposition"). D. The plaintiff filed a tax appeal following an objection against the initial disposition. On February 22, 2013, the Tax Tribunal decided that the share transaction between the plaintiff and DD was a share sales contract, and thus the tax base and tax amount in 2006 taxable years should be corrected.

E. Accordingly, the defendant issued a disposition to rectify the amount of the global income tax for the year 2006 to the amount of the OOO won by reducing the amount of the global income tax for the year 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case")," "No dispute over the remaining portion of the global income tax for the year 2006" (the grounds for recognition), "A evidence 1-2, and Nos. 1-5, and Nos. 1-5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

“The Plaintiff received a check from EE General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EE”) and FF (hereinafter “FFF”) in lieu of the Plaintiff’s loan claims. The instant check was issued on July 5, 2006, six months after the lapse of the presentation period, and the extinctive prescription of FF’s check was completed on October 1, 2006. Since the extinctive prescription of FF’s check was completed on October 1, 2006, each of the instant checks should be recognized as bad debt regardless of whether it falls under the claim for which the extinctive prescription under the Check Act received in relation to the outstanding amount under Article 25(1)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that each of the instant checks was issued as security for payment.”

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a)a fact;

1) On June 22, 2005, EE borrowed KRW OOO from the Plaintiff with monthly interest and 4%, and on October 25, 2005, issued one copy of the unit number as shown in the following table 1 to the Plaintiff. FF borrowed KRW OOOO from the Plaintiff on September 2005, and issued one copy of the unit number as set forth in Table 2 to the Plaintiff on October 12, 2005.

See Table 3 of the Court Decision

2) The principal and interest that EE and FF paid to the Plaintiff is as follows:

See Table 4 see Court Decision 4

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

"1) Bad debts" refers to the amount which becomes impossible to collect out of credit account receivable, bills loan, etc., and the Enforcement Decree of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the Enforcement Rule thereof, respectively.

Article 27(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Rule, Article 55(1)16 and (2) of the Enforcement Rule, and Article 25(1) of the Enforcement Rule can be divided into cases where the relevant claim is legally extinguished and where the relevant bad debt amount is not legally extinguished, but where the debtor's assets are not recoverable in light of the debtor's assets situation and payment ability. The former is naturally impossible to recover the claim on the check or note for 6 months or longer from the date of default. Thus, the latter is included in the necessary expenses for the taxable year to which the date of termination belongs regardless of whether the business operator disposes of the claim as bad debt. Thus, since the latter exists, the latter cannot be seen as having been counted in the necessary expenses for the pertinent taxable year only when the business operator included in the book that caused bad debt, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have issued a 30-O ruling on the remaining debt amount as necessary expenses for each of the following reasons. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have issued a 30-O ruling on the remaining debt amount to the Plaintiff.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.