Suwon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-62409 ( October 28, 2016)

Where a claim is legally extinguished, bad debts in the business year which includes the date of termination;

(See the summary of the judgment of the court below) The claims to be included in deductible expenses by the disposal of bad debt under the Corporate Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree shall be shown as examples, and if the claims are legally extinguished, the corporation shall be included in deductible expenses for the business year to which the date of termination belongs, regardless of whether the claims

Article 19-2 of the Corporate Tax Act

2016Nu59258 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

AAAAAA Corporation

BB Director of the Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Guhap62409 Decided June 28, 2016

November 22, 2016

December 13, 2016

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the part against which additional cancellation is ordered shall be revoked;

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 7,312,821,918 against the Plaintiff on October 1, 2013 is revoked KRW 492,904,105 of the imposition disposition of KRW 7,312,821,918.

2. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 75% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The part of the Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 14,140,81,506 of corporate tax for the business year 2008, exceeding KRW 14,140,818,242 of corporate tax for the business year 2008, exceeding KRW 1,300,172,527 of corporate tax for the business year 2009, exceeding KRW 7,312,821,43,236 of corporate tax for the business year 7,312,821,91, and exceeding KRW 6,412,43,236 of the imposition disposition of KRW 1,624,184,352 of corporate tax for the business year 2012, exceeding KRW 1,622,50,5065 of the imposition disposition of KRW 527 of corporate tax for the business year 2009, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The part exceeding KRW 1,30,172,527 of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 5,990,742,079 against the plaintiff on October 1, 2013 shall be revoked, and the part exceeding KRW 6,412,43,236 of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 7,312,821,91 for the business year 2009 shall be revoked.

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this court's explanation is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ The fourth page 10 of the judgment of the first instance court was “as follows,” and the business year 2010 did not impose corporate tax due to tax loss.”

0000.00.000.00.00.000.000.2000.

○ At the bottom of Part 5 of the first instance judgment, Part 5, “No. 26,” added

○ Article 12 of the Court Decision No. 16 of the Court Decision No. 16 of the Court Decision No. 16 of the Court Decision No. 3

○ Part 13 of the Decision of the first instance court No. 16 and the following are added:

(1) The plaintiff argues that Article 19-2 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the amount of claims which cannot be recovered due to reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as debtor's bankruptcy among those held by a domestic corporation shall be included in deductible expenses when calculating the income amount for the pertinent business year. Article 19-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that claims which cannot be recovered due to reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree referred to in Article 19-2 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act refer to claims falling under any of the following subparagraphs, which are subject to bad debt disposal, are limited to claims that are subject to bad debt disposal, and the Supreme Court Decision 95Nu18130 Decided August 23, 1996, citing the Supreme Court Decision 95Nu18130 Decided 23, 1996, the claim that this case's claim for bad debt is not subject to bad debt disposal under the Corporate Tax Act. However, while the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act on bad debt is different in the form of income under the Income Tax Act, the concept of the Income Tax Act.

○ From No. 12 of the first instance court ruling No. 12 of the 2011 to No. 16 of the 2011, “a revocation shall be made,” and “a revocation shall be made, as follows:

The Defendant’s disposition that included the Plaintiff’s income in the year 2010 as well as the Plaintiff’s disposition that included the amount of KRW 1,776,179,798 in gross income is also illegal. As such, the Plaintiff’s losses in the business year 2010 are increased to the above amount, and the increased amount of KRW 1,776,179,798 in the business year 2010 should be additionally deducted from the amount of income in the business year 2011, and corporate tax for the business year 2011

Of the imposition of KRW 7,312,821,918, the 2010 and 2011 Project in relation to well-beingd Lone Star and Lone Star.

Amount of legitimate tax calculated by deducting the amount included in the gross income of the year and deducting the amount of loss brought forward in 2010.

The portion exceeding KRW 6,412,433,236, is unlawful, and thus revoked;

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed without merit. Since the part of the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year of 201 in the judgment of the court of first instance differs from that of the part of the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year of 2011 (6,90,904,105 won = 6,905,337,341 won -6,412,43,236 won) is unfair, the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance is justified with the conclusion, and thus the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first