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

Cheong-gu Office

On June 10, 2014, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the value-added tax No. 2000 on the Plaintiff on June 10, 2012.

A. From April 3, 1998, the Plaintiff runs the business of exporting, importing, selling, and processing grain and feed in the O-O of Seoul OOO-dong O-O.

B. The Plaintiff transferred a bill of lading to thisB (trade name:CC Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as “CC Co., Ltd”). On August 31, 2009, the Plaintiff issued an OOO on the supply price for O tons, and an OOO Co., Ltd on October 1, 2009 each tax invoice for OO tons.

C. In filing the final return of the second value-added tax in 2012, the Plaintiff filed the return after deducting the amount of bad debt tax (hereinafter “the amount of bad debt tax of this case”) equivalent to 10/110 of the sales amount of the relevant sales amount from the sales amount, on the grounds that the reason that theCC company’s cause for bad debt occurred by closing its business on September 30, 2012.

D. On June 10, 2014, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the requirements for bad debt were not determined; (b) denied the deduction of bad debt tax amount; and (c) corrected and notified the OO of value-added tax (hereinafter “instant taxable period”) on June 10, 2014.

E. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 18, 2014, but was dismissed on December 26, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

CC was closed on September 30, 2012, and this BB was insolvent because it had no asset under its own name at the time. Since a cause of bad debt occurred in the instant taxable period regarding the instant sales claim, the instant bad debt tax amount ought to be deducted from the output tax amount for the pertinent taxable period.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On March 2, 201, 201, the CC Co., Ltd. supplied Doz (hereinafter referred to as Dodddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddde, EEddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd, eedddddddddd, Fdddddddd

3) On March 24, 2011, CCTV transferred all the above rights that it acquired from DDD to the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to notify the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant obligation”) of the acquisition of the said obligation to FF on the same day.

4) On April 4, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against FF on the ground of the instant claim for the transfer of goods, etc., and was sentenced to a judgment against FF on February 13, 2013 (Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2000, Feb. 13, 2013), and appealed, but was sentenced to a judgment against FF on January 17, 2014 (Seoul High Court Decision 2000, Jan. 17, 2014), and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

5) Meanwhile, in the process of voluntary auction of real estate (a voluntary auction of the secured real estate in Jincheon District Court Branch OOO2, OO-dong OO-dong (O-dong, OO-dong) (hereinafter “the secured real estate”), which was conducted after the closure of the business on September 30, 2012 by CC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “OG”), the Plaintiff received OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-owned on July 31, 2013 with the sales claim as the secured claim of this case as the secured claim, added 10/110 of the dividend amount to the output tax amount at the time of the final return of value-added tax at the time of the second final return of value-added tax in 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, Eul evidence No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) Article 17-2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11608, Jan. 1, 2013) provides that a bad debt amount may be subtracted from the output tax amount in the taxable period whereto belongs the date when the bad debt becomes final and conclusive if all or part of the sales claim cannot be recovered due to the bankruptcy or compulsory execution of the supplied person or other reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree. The above bankruptcy, compulsory execution or other reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree refers to a claim that falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 19-2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24357, Feb. 15, 2013). Article 19-2(1)8 provides that a debtor's tax evasion cannot be recovered due to the debtor's bankruptcy, compulsory execution, execution of punishment, discontinuation of business, disappearance, missing, or missing (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008).

2) As seen earlier,CC Co., Ltd., the debtor of the instant sales claim, discontinued its business on September 30, 2012, and thus, we examine whether it became objectively impossible to recover the entire sales claim during the instant taxable period.

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the facts and evidence as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the reason for bad debts has occurred, which became objectively and objectively final and conclusive the impossibility of collecting all of the instant sales claims.

① There is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff conducted an investigation of the BB’s property, acquisition of executive title, compulsory execution, etc. on the property in order to recover the sales claim of this case until the instant taxable period (Evidence A 3).

② On June 29, 2012, which was three months before the closure of the CCB’s spouse, New HH, a spouse of this B, continued to engage in a trade with the existing business partners of the CCB after opening a "II Unemployment," which is the same type of business as the CCB, and continued to engage in a trade with the existing business partners of the CCB. The second unemployment was changed on June 25, 2013 to a joint business entity of new H (70%) and this BB (30%). On October 1, 2014, the said shares were changed to 50% each. In light of the process of the opening of the second unemployment, the current status of transaction partners, the closure of the CC company, and the participation in the shares of this B, it is difficult to conclude that the BB was in an insolvent state since there was no available assets at the time of the instant taxable period.

③ As seen earlier, on March 24, 201, prior to the closure of the business, the Plaintiff acquired the instant claim for transfer with respect to the repayment of the instant sales claim. It can be presumed that at least the transfer was made by means of a security or repayment for the repayment of the said sales claim. However, the possibility of the repayment of the said claim for transfer cannot be ruled out.

④ In the lawsuit filed against FF on April 4, 201, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of goods, etc., that was filed against FF, was sentenced to the judgment against February 13, 2013, which was after the instant taxable period, and the appellate court rendered a final and conclusive judgment against the Plaintiff, as seen earlier. However, the instant claim for the transfer of the instant case was acquired by transfer from the CC company that received the claim against DD EE, and the obligor of the above claim for the transfer of the instant claim is deemed EE. The said lawsuit is not against EE, but is not limited to the lawsuit, and it does not constitute a cause for the performance of the obligation for the transfer of the instant case. Thus, the instant claim for the transfer of the instant case became final and conclusive by the judgment against the said loss, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the E EE’s insolvency (it is also difficult to view the Plaintiff’s claim for the transfer of the instant claim against EE solely on the basis of the outcome of the lawsuit).

4. Conclusion

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