beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015. 05. 15. 선고 2014누63802 판결

소득금액 계산시 필요경비에 산입되는 대손금은 그 필요경비로 산입되는 연도에 회수불능의 사실이 객관적으로 확정된 채권에 한하는 것임(국승)[국승]

Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Incheon District Court 2014Gudan10087 (2014.09.02)

Case Number of the previous trial

Early High Court Decision 2013J 3803 ( November 27, 2013)

Title

In calculating the income amount, the bad debt included in the necessary expenses shall be limited to the credit, the fact that it is impossible to recover in the year in which the necessary expenses are included, is objectively confirmed.

Summary

(The same as the first instance judgment) The bad debt included in the calculation of the income amount shall not be deemed as a collateral for the debtor’s claim asserted by the Plaintiff as a collateral for the debtor’s claim asserted by the Plaintiff, because the fact of impossibility to recover in the year when the necessary expenses are included in

Related statutes

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses of Capital Gains)

Cases

Seoul High Court 2014Nu63802

Plaintiff and appellant

○ ○

Defendant, Appellant

○ Head of tax office

Judgment of the first instance court

Incheon District Court Decision 2014Gudan10087 Decided September 2, 2014

Conclusion of Pleadings

May 1, 2015

Imposition of Judgment

May 15, 2015

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of global income tax of KRW 00,000,000 against the Plaintiff on January 9, 2013 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following matters to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

○ The following shall be added to the 5th page 18:

Article 55 (1) 16 and 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22580, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same) asserts that Article 55 (1) 16 and 55 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act are the legal grounds for

However, Article 55 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act stipulates "claims which cannot be recovered due to a debtor's death, disappearance, unknown whereabouts, etc." as bad debts. However, in 2010, the plaintiff is also recognized as not having changed due to his/her personal condition, such as death, disappearance, unknown whereabouts, etc., and the loss of security against the debtor's insolvency or claims asserted by the plaintiff does not constitute bad debts as stipulated in the above subparagraph. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit."

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.