대금채권의 회수불능이 인정된다 하더라도 대손으로 인정받기 위해서는 장부에 계상하여야 함[국승]
early 2012Gu1027 (Law No. 17, 2012)
In order to be recognized as a bad debt even if the non-collectionable claim is recognized, it shall be included in the account book.
Since a claim for proceeds does not become legally extinguished, even if it is objectively acknowledged that the impossibility of collecting the claim as asserted by the plaintiff is objectively obvious, it can be included in necessary expenses for business income only when the plaintiff appropriated it in his/her own account book, and there is no evidence to find that it was recorded in the account book
2012Guhap2520 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.
Kim XX et al.
Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office
October 5, 2012
October 31, 2012
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The Defendant’s disposition of adding KRW 000 to global income tax of KRW 000 on January 2, 2012, which was rendered to Plaintiff KimA on January 2, 2012 and the disposition of imposing global income tax of KRW 000 on Plaintiff B for the year 2008 is revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 16, 2003, the plaintiffs and the non-party-CC entered into a contract with the non-party-party-party-party company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party-party company") that operated apartment construction business on the part of the Gu-Si Y 7 and the non-party-party-party company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party-party company") that provided the non-party company with services, such as purchase of apartment site necessary for the above apartment construction business and received 000 won (including value-added tax) (hereinafter referred to as the "the contract in this case") (the shares of the plaintiffs and thisCC: 11/30), the plaintiff KimA (1/30), the plaintiff-B (1/30), and 8/30)].
B. The plaintiffs and thisCC did not pay the balance of the contract price of this case 000 won (hereinafter referred to as the "price of this case"). On August 29, 2008, the non-party company filed a lawsuit against the non-party company for the claim of the price of this case and received a favorable judgment on December 18, 2008 (Seoul District Court Decision 2008Gahap9413). The non-party company withdrawn the appeal and became final and conclusive on January 22, 2009 (Seoul High Court 2009Na793).
C. On July 25, 2011, the Director of the Daegu Regional Tax Office confirmed that the Plaintiffs did not report the instant claim as income, and notified the Defendant of the fact. Accordingly, on January 2, 2012, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff KimA of KRW 00 of the global income tax for 2008 and KRW 000 of the global income tax for 2008 to the Plaintiff B, respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
D. On February 8, 2012, the Plaintiffs appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on April 17, 2012.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 3-1-3, Gap evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.
The Defendant’s disposal of this case without deduction is unlawful, since it constitutes a bad debt under Article 55(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act due to the default of the non-party company, and it constitutes a necessary expense when calculating business income pursuant to Article 55(1)16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.
3. Related statutes;
Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.
4. Determination
A. According to Article 27(1) and (3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009) and Article 55(1)16 and (2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21214 of Dec. 31, 2008), claims which a resident with business income is unable to recover due to the debtor's bankruptcy, compulsory execution, or discontinuance of business shall be deemed as bad debts and included in necessary expenses. In full view of the relevant statutes and Article 27(1) and (4) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 15 of Apr. 29, 2008), it is obvious that the relevant bad debts amounting to necessary expenses are not legally extinguished, but can be presumed as impossible to be collected within the scope of necessary expenses for the pertinent taxable year due to the absence of necessary expenses by the taxpayer's asset status, payment ability, etc.
B. In the case of this case, since the claim of this case was not legally extinguished, even if it is objectively acknowledged that the impossibility of collecting the claim of this case is objectively obvious as the plaintiff's assertion, it may be included in the necessary expenses of business income only when the plaintiff has appropriated it in his account book. However, there is no evidence to find that the plaintiff entered it in the account book that a bad debt was incurred against the claim
5. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.