Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap8025 (2014.09.02)

The requirement of bad debt is not satisfied because the debtor has discontinued his business.

A debtor's business discontinuation refers to a claim that is objectively confirmed due to the debtor's business discontinuation in the business year that includes the debtor's business discontinuation, and thus, the debtor's business closure in 2011 does not immediately meet the requirements for bad debt in the business year 2011.

Article 19-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

2014Nu64782 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

AAA, Inc.

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap8025 decided September 2, 2014

May 20, 2015

June 3, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On July 1, 2013, the imposition of the corporate tax belonging to the business year of 2011 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Grounds for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of the court is as follows: (1) from the sixth bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance to the fifth sentence; and (5) from the fifth sentence; and (7) except for the addition of the following subparagraphs to paragraph (2), the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The addition;

[6] The "claim which cannot be recovered due to the discontinuation of the debtor's business" refers to the claim that is objectively confirmed due to the discontinuation of the debtor's business during the business year in which the debtor's business was included in deductible expenses, so the BB industrial development was closed in 2011 and does not immediately meet the requirement for bad debt for the business year 2011, and the actual ex officio closure date of the BB industrial development does not meet the requirement for bad debt for the business year. As of August 28, 2012, the date when the plaintiff reported the bad debt of the loan claim in this case on August 28, 2012, the date when the plaintiff reported the bad debt claim in the business year 2011, the BB industrial development was not closed, and the plaintiff does not take into account the closure of the business as bad debt as deductible expenses. 8. The possibility of accepting the plaintiff's claim in a lawsuit for revocation of the provisional

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.