Incheon District Court 201Guhap2136 (O1, 2012)

early 2010 Heavy2370 ( October 11, 201)

Where a non-business officer sells bonds with provisional payments and disposes of them in the form of a bonds disposal loss, they shall not be included in the calculation of losses.

Even in cases where the Plaintiff, regardless of its business affairs, sells bonds with provisional payments paid to a related corporation and disposed of them in the form of a bonds disposal loss, such bonds shall not be included in the calculation of losses, as they are treated in the form

2012Nu4045 Revocation of the imposition of corporate tax

AA Cosmetics Co., Ltd.

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

Incheon District Court Decision 201Guhap2136 Decided January 11, 2012

December 11, 2012

February 1, 2013

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.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 000 for the business year 2007 against the Plaintiff on May 11, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Provisional payments;

The following facts are recognized in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in each entry in evidence Nos. 1 and 19 (including household numbers), and evidence Nos. 1 and 1.

[1]

"○" The plaintiff is a corporation established on January 31, 1994 for the purpose of manufacturing and selling cosmetics, selling and leasing real estate, distribution, construction, etc., and AADF corporation (hereinafter "AAAD") has not been changed to AAADF corporation on May 21, 2008 for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, marketing and distribution as well as pharmaceutical products, non-pharmaceutical products, health products, stuffs, medical appliances, and miscellaneous sales, marketing and telecommunications sales, visiting and telecommunications sales, and e-commerce and third party logistics services, and has invested 100% of the plaintiff and has been established on July 22, 200, and has leased 100 won to ADF corporation on May 21, 200, but has not leased 100.0.0.00.0.00.

O) After that, the sales performance of the cosmetics, etc. manufactured by the Plaintiff through AAD (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs’ products”) was less likely, and the Plaintiff discontinued the door-to-door sales business of AAD by suspending door-to-door sales business through AAD at the end of 2007 and by relocating the organization and human resources of AADD's door-to-door sales business to the door-door sales business department within the Plaintiff.

Around December 14, 2007, 2007, the BB accounting corporation requested the appraisal of the total amount of each of the above claims (hereinafter referred to as the "claim") from the Plaintiff, while it judged that the actual value of the claim of this case is KRW 000,000, the value of the claim of this case was assessed as KRW 000, considering the sale-related expenses.

○ On December 28, 2007, the Plaintiff sold the instant claim to CCC Investment Limited Company, a specialized institution for debt collection, at KRW 100,000, and KRW 00.

[2]

○ The Plaintiff reported and paid corporate tax for the business year 2007 to the Defendant around March 2008, and included 000 won (=000 won - 000 won) in deductible expenses as bonds disposal losses.

○ The Defendant notified from the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of taxation data that the above accounting was treated as bad debt for the person with a special relationship, and decided and notified 00 won of corporate tax for the business year 2007, which was additionally paid to the Plaintiff on May 11, 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

○ The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 6, 2010, but on February 11, 2011, the appeal was dismissed.

2. The nature of the provisional payment;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The claim of this case constitutes a provisional payment related to the plaintiff's business as a matter of course, and thus, constitutes a provisional payment related to the plaintiff's business, and thus, it is unlawful to exclude the defendant from deductible expenses in calculating the corporate tax base for the business year 2007, considering that the claim of this case constitutes a provisional payment unrelated to the plaintiff's business.

(b) Provisional payments without office of business;

"(1) 원고가 2007사업연도 법인세를 신고 ・ 납부할 당시 시행되던 「법인세법」 제28조 제1항 제4호 나목은， 내국법인이 특수관계자에게 당해 법인의 업무와 관련없이 지급한 가지급금 등으로서 대통령령이 정하는 것(이하 '업무무관 가지급금'이라고 한다)에 관하여 규정하고 있고，1) 「법인세법 시행령」 제53조 제1항은， 업무무관 가지급금이라 함은 명칭여하에 불구하고 당해 법인의 업무와 관련이 없는 자금의 대여액 (제61조 제2항 각 호의 1에 해당하는 금융기관 등의 경우 주된 수익사업으로 볼 수 없는 자금의 대여액을 포함한다)을 말한다고 규정하고 있으며，2) ▲ 여기에는 순수한의미의 대여금은 물론 채권의 성질상 대여금에 준하는 것도 포함되고， 또 특수관계에 있는 자로부터 적정한 이자율에 따른 이자를 받으면서 가지급금을 제공한 경우도 포함되며， 이때 가지급금의 업무관련성 여부는 당해 법인의 목적사업이나 영업내용 등을 기준으로 객관적으로 판단하여야 한다(대법원 2007. 9. 20. 선고 2006두1647 판결， 대법 원 2003. 3. 11. 선고 2002두4068 판결 등 참조).",(2) 통상의 경우 법인이 외부로부터 차입한 차입금의 지급이자나 대손에 충당하기 위하여 계상한 대손충당금， 실제 대손사유가 발생한 대손금은 해당 법인의 순자산을 감소시키는 거래로 인하여 발생하는 손비의 금액으로서 손금에 산입함이 원칙이다. 그러나， 원고의 2007사업연도 법인세 납부의무 성립 당시 시행되던 「법인세법」 은 ▲ 법인의 차입금 중 업무무관 가지급금에 상당하는 차입금의 지급이자(제28조 제1항 제4 호 나목) 업무무관 가지급금 채권의 대손에 충당하기 위하여 법인이 계상한 대손충당금(제34조 제3항 제2호， 제1항)，▲ 법인이 보유한 채권 중 대손사유가 발생한 업무 무관 가지급금 채권의 금액(제34조 제3항 제2호， 제2항)에 대하여는 해당 법인의 순자산을 감소시키는 거래로 인하여 발생한 것이라고 하더라도 이를 손금에 산업하지 않도록 규정하고 있다.

(c) Fact of recognition;

In full view of the above evidence, Gap evidence 20 to 27, Eul evidence 29, and Eul evidence 4 (including paper numbers), and the testimony of the first instance court witness DoD, the following facts are acknowledged.

[1]

O The Plaintiff invested 100% in order to increase the sales of cosmetics, etc. produced by the Plaintiff through the construction of door-to-door sales network, and established AAD on July 22, 2003.

O The Plaintiff leased a building owned by the Plaintiff to AAD, and extended a marina loan upon request from AADF, and did not include money credit business or other financial business in the intended business in the Plaintiff’s corporate register.

O) On the other hand, AAD used short-term loans received from the Plaintiff for the purpose of purchasing door-to-door sales goods, personnel expenses, such as salaries for employees, sales promotional expenses, and repayment of loans from the Plaintiff. Of the sales of AAD, the parts of cosmetics purchased from the Plaintiff were not more than 50%, and the remaining parts were health and household effects (raw, e.g., household effects, rice, e., g., e., g., e.s.) purchased from other manufacturing companies than the Plaintiff.

I analyzed the income statement for the business year from 2003 to 2007 of the O AArap, and the product sales amount of 000 won (00 won), 000 won for sales and management expenses, and 000 business losses, each year, as we can know, losses have occurred and accumulated.

O The Plaintiff deemed the instant claim as a provisional payment in office for the business year from the business year 2004 to the business year 2007, and thus, made tax adjustment under the gross income industry and the interest paid industry as losses.

O The Plaintiff was suspended from selling the Plaintiff’s product through AAD from around 2007, and the actual value of the instant claim assessed as of December 14, 2007 through the appraiser’s opinion was zero won.

[2]

OADF was operated in accordance with the integrated business plan prepared by the Plaintiff without preparing a separate business plan, and there was personnel exchange between the Plaintiff and AADF in the form of a transfer order, and the Plaintiff and AADF jointly held various events and conducted various welfare or donations, such as gift payment, to the employees engaged in life-saving.

O After suspending the sale of the Plaintiff’s product through AAD, the Plaintiff transferred the employees of AADD to the door-to-door sales business department in the Plaintiff, thereby allowing them to engage in the sales of the Plaintiff’s product.

D. Determination

(1) The circumstances examined in accordance with the above facts of recognition and the relevant laws and regulations are as follows.

• Since the Plaintiff’s objective business does not include money credit business or other financial business, it cannot be viewed that the Plaintiff’s financial support to AAD is naturally the Plaintiff’s objective business, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff actually engaged in money credit business or other financial business by lending funds to other corporations than AAD.

• Although AADF is a company with 100% investment by the Plaintiff and falls under a specially related person, it cannot be deemed that AADF’s performance of its intended business, such as door-to-door sales, is the Plaintiff’s performance of the Plaintiff’s proper business, since AAD’s investment does not coincide with 100% of its intended business, and it is difficult to view AADF’s above money borrowed or used for the Plaintiff’s business solely on the ground that AADF borrowed money from the Plaintiff was used in connection with AAD’s business.

• The circumstances that the Plaintiff and AAD F are affiliated companies with the head office or are jointly engaged in business plans, personnel management, various welfare benefits, etc. are difficult to view the Plaintiff’s lending of funds to AADF to the Plaintiff’s implementation of its intended business or business for the Plaintiff’s own reason.

• Although the door-to-door sales business is included in the AAD's intended business, there is no evidence that AADF was used only for the purpose of door-to-door sales business for the plaintiff's products, and rather, AADF was established for the purpose of marketing and distribution in addition to the door-to-door sales business, and actually purchased and sold a number of products other than cremation from other companies than the plaintiff, and the ratio of the purchase amount of cosmetics purchased from the plaintiff to the plaintiff does not exceed 50% of the total sales of AAD, and it is difficult to view that AADD's performance solely for the sale of the plaintiff's products, and there is no essential difference between the plaintiff and other purchasing companies in relation to AAD.

(2) In light of the Plaintiff’s intended business and business contents, and the amount of the instant claim that the Plaintiff did not lend funds to AADF or lease and recover the Plaintiff’s building constitutes the provisional payment paid without connection with the Plaintiff’s business, and it does not change with the fact that the Plaintiff, instead of operating the door-to-door sales business in the company, provided funds to newly establish and operate the AA cosmetic as a separate sales corporation to be in charge of selling the Plaintiff’s products, instead of providing the door-to-door sales

(3) Therefore, the claim amount of this case constitutes a provisional payment which the plaintiff paid to AAD pursuant to Article 52(1) of the Corporate Tax Act, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Whether the non-business expenses are included in the deductible expenses;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff included the loss of disposal of the instant claim in deductible expenses and did not constitute deductible expenses at the time of filing a corporate tax return for the business year 2007, but did not constitute the loss of disposal of general claims (Article 61(5)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act). Thus, even if the instant claim falls under the provisional payment amount paid by the Plaintiff to AADF, it should be included in deductible expenses. However, even if the instant claim falls under the provisional payment amount paid by the Plaintiff to ADF, it should be included in deductible expenses. However, in calculating the amount of corporate tax for the business year 2007, the Defendant was revised after the end of the business year 2007, and applied from the date of January 1, 2008 to the specially related person, which is not related to the business affairs that were paid to him, and thus, did not include the loss of disposal of the instant claim in deductible expenses under Article 61(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act that provides that the amount of the instant claim shall not be included in deductible expenses.

(b) Non-Inclusion of provisional payments without business affairs in deductible expenses;

[1]

(1) 원고의 2007사업연도 법인세 납부의무 성립 당시 시행되던 「법인세법」 은 ▲ 내국법인이 각 사업연도에 외상매출금・대여금 기타 이에 준하는 채권의 대손에 충당하기 위하여 대손충당금을 손금으로 계상한 경우(제34조 제1항)와 내국법인이 보유하고 있는 채권 중 일정한 사유로 회수할 수 없는 채권의 금액，즉 대손금의 경우(제34조 제2항) 당해 사업연도의 소득금액계산에 있어서 이를 손금에 산입하도록 규정하면서 도，6 채무보증으로 인하여 발생한 구상채권(제34조 제3항 제1호)과 법인이 특수관계자에게 지급한 업무무관 가지급금(제28조 제1항 제4호 나목)에 해당하는 채권(제34조 제3항 제2호)에 대하여는 위 각 손금 산입 조항을 적용하지 않도록 규정함으로써，채무보증으로 인하여 발생한 구상채권과 업무무관 가지급금을 대손충당금의 설정대상과 대손금의 대상에서 모두 제외하였다.

(2) In addition, Article 61(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which was in force at that time, provides that the disposal loss of the claim for compensation subject to Article 34(3) of the Corporate Tax Act shall not be included in the calculation of losses, and that in the case of the claim for compensation arising from debt guarantee, it shall not be included in the calculation of losses, but thereafter, Article 61(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act shall be amended by Presidential Decree No. 20619 of Feb. 22, 2008, that the disposal loss of the claim for compensation subject to Article 34(3) of the Corporate Tax Act shall not be included in the calculation of losses, by providing that the office of business shall not be included in the calculation of losses even in the case of the disposal loss of the claim for compensation, and that the above amended by Presidential Decree No. 20619 of Feb. 22, 2008, including Article 61(5) of the Corporate Tax Act as amended by Presidential Decree No. 20619, was applied from the beginning of Act No. 181.

[2]

(1) 원고의 2007사업연도 법인세 납부의무 성립 당시 시행되던 「법인세법」 제34조는 제2항9)에서， 내국법인이 보유하고 있는 채권 중 채무자의 파산 등 대통령령이 정하 는 사유로 회수할 수 없는 채권의 금액(대손금)은 당해 사업연도의 소득금액계산에 있어서 이를 손금에 산입한다고 규정하고 있었다. 그에 따라 그 당시 시행되던 「법인세법 시행령」 제62조는 대손금의 범위에 관하여 규정하면서 ▲ 제1항에서， 법 제34조 제2항에서 "대통령령이 정하는 사유로 회수할 수 없는 채권"이라 함은 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 것을 말한다고 규정하였고，▲ 그 중 하나로 제8호에서， 채무자의 파산， 강제집행， 형의 집행， 사업의 폐지， 사망， 실종， 행방불명으로 인하여 회수할 수 없는 채권을 규정하고 있었다. 위와 같이 대손금은 법인이 소유한 채권 중 회수할 수 없게 된 채권의 가액을 말하는 것으로서，▲ 법인이 결산상 장부에 손금으로 계상한 경우에 한하여 법령이 정한 일정 한 한도액 범위 내에서 손금으로 인정되는 대손충당금과 달리， 「법인세법」 제34조 제2 항， 「법인세법 시행령」 제62조 제1항 각 호의 사유로 회수할 수 없는 채권에 해당하면 당연히 대손금으로 인정되는 것이므로 법인이 대손금에 해당되는지 여부를 임의로 결정할 수 없고，▲ 다만 대손의 발생사유에 따라 「법인세법 시행령」 제62조 제3항 각 호에 의하여 대손이 손금으로 귀속되는 사업연도가 달라질 뿐이다.

(2) On the other hand, Article 34(3) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the application of the provisions on deductible expenses of bad debts under Article 34(2) shall not be included in deductible expenses of a corporation for the pertinent business year, with respect to claims for indemnity (as referred to in subparagraph 1) arising from debt guarantees (excluding debt guarantees as prescribed by the Presidential Decree) under each subparagraph of Article 34(3) of the Corporate Tax Act and claims (as referred to in subparagraph 2), which fall under Article 28(1)4(b) (as seen earlier). Therefore, even if the requirements for bad debts are met pursuant to the related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Corporate Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree

[3]

(1) However, around the end of 2007, the Plaintiff’s door-to-door sales business of the Plaintiff’s products was suspended through AADF, and the organization and human resources of AADD’s door-to-door sales business of the Plaintiff were transferred to the door-to-door sales business division in the Plaintiff, and thus, AADD’s door-to-door sales business was discontinued (the Plaintiff is responsible for the Plaintiff’s complaint and the preparatory brief, etc. on October 23, 2012), and around that time, on December 14, 2007, the price of the claim in this case owned by the Plaintiff against AADF was substantially zero, and it appears that the Plaintiff could not recover the claim, and the “bonds not recovered due to the discontinuance of the business” is defined as a bad debt under Article 62(1) Subparagraph 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and the claim amount of the Plaintiff’s ADD’s instant case can be deemed the Plaintiff’s bad debt for the business year.

(2) However, this case’s claim constitutes a provisional payment claim unrelated to the business, and therefore, the claim amount in this case is excluded from the subject of establishment of bad debt pursuant to Article 34(3)2 of the Corporate Tax Act, despite the requirement of bad debt, and cannot be included in deductible expenses for the business year 2007.

(3) 이에 대한 원고의 주장은， 2007. 12. 28.경 CCC매니지먼트 유한회사에게 이 사건 채권을 000원에 매각하여 000원(= 이 사건 채권액 000원 - 매각액 000원) 상당의 처분손실을 입었다는 이유로 위 금원 상당을 원고의 2007사업연도의 손금에 산입하여야 한다는 것이다. 그러나， 「국세기본법」 제14조 제1항， 제2항13)이 천명하고 있는 실질과세의 원칙은 「헌법」 상의 기본이념인 평등의 원칙을 조세법률관계에 구현하기 위한 실천적 원리로서， 조세의 부담을 회피할 목적으로 과세요건사실에 관하여 실질과 괴리되는 비합리적인 형식이나 외관을 취하는 경우에 그 형식이나 외관에 불구하고 실질에 따라 담세력이 있는 곳에 과세함으로써 부당한 조세회피행위를 규제하고 과세의 형평을 제고하여 조세정의를 실현하고자 하는 데 주된 목적이 있고， 이는 조세법의 기본원리인 조세법률 주의와 대렵관계에 있는 것이 아니라 조세법규를 다양하게 변화하는 경제생활관계에 적용함에 있어 예측가능성과 법적 안정성이 훼손되지 않는 범위 내에서 합목적적이고 탄력적으로 해석함으로써 조세법률주의의 형해화를 막고 실효성을 확보한다는 점에서 조세법률주의와 상호보완적이고 불가분적인 관계에 있다고 할 것이다(대법원 2012. 1. 19. 선고 2008두8499 전원합의 체 판결). 위 인정사실 및 앞서 든 증거들에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정， 즉 ▲ 원고 스스로 2004사업연도부터 2007사업연도까지 AA라이프에 대여금을 지급한 금원에 대하여 회수가 어렵다고 보아 대손충당금을 설정하고 이에 대한 세무조정시 대손충당금한도초과액으로 '손금불산입 유보처리'를 하기도 하였던 점，6 그 후 에도 결손이 계속 누적되고 2007년도 말경에는 AA라이프의 방문판매사업까지 폐지하여 이 사건 채권을 회수할 수 없게 됨으로써 「법인세법 시행령」 제62조 제1항 제8 호의 대손요건을 충족하게 된 점，▲ 그러나 이 사건 채권액은 대손요건을 충족하고 있으나 업무무관 가지급금( 「법인세법」 제28조 제1항 제4호 나목15)， 「법인세법 시행령」 제53조 제1항16»)에 해당하여 「법인세법」 제34조 제3항 제2호17)에 의하여 대손금 의 대상에서 제외됨으로써 원고의 2007사업연도의 손금으로 산입될 수 없게 된 점，▲ 원고는 위와 같이 이 사건 채권액이 대손금으로는 손금에 산입될 수 없는 상황을 면하기 위하여 원고가 이를 염가에 처분하여 처분손실의 형식을 취해 2007사업연도의 손금에 산입하여 2007사업연도 법인세를 신고한 것으로 보이는 점， 6 r법인세법 시행 령」 제62조 제1항 제8호에서 규정한 '사업폐지로 회수할 수 없는 채권'은 이른바 결산 조정사항에 해당하여 제62조 제3항 제2호에 의하여 원칙적으로 '해당 사유가 발생하여 손금으로 계상한 날이 속하는 사업연도'，즉 법인이 회수불가능이 명백하게 되어 대손이 발생한 것으로 회계상의 처리를 하였을 때에 한하여 세무회계상 대손의 범위에 속하는지 여부를 가려 그 대손이 확정된 사업연도의 손금으로 산업할 수 있으나， 법인이 법인세를 신고하지 않거나 부당하게 신고하여 과세관청이 세무조사를 거쳐 법인세를 부과하는 경우에는 위 규정에도 불구하고 과세관청이 대손요건 충족 여부나 업무무관 가지급금 해당 여부를 확인하여 당해 사업연도의 손금산입 또는 손금불산입 여부를 결정할 수 있는 점 등을 종합하면， 원고가 대손사유가 발생하였으나 업무무관 가지급금에 해당하여 대손금의 대상에서 제외됨으로써 손금예 산입할 수 없는 이 사건 채권에 대하여 처분손실의 형식으로 2007사업연도의 손금에 산입한 것은， 법인이 법인세의 부담을 회피할 목적으로 과세요건사실에 관하여 실질과 괴리되는 비합리적인 형식이나 외관을 취하는 경우에 해당한다고 봄이 상당하다. 따라서 피고가 처분손실의 외관을 인정하지 아니하고 그 실질을 따져 이 사건 채권을 대손금으로 보아 위 000원(= 이 사건 채권액 000원 - 매각액 000원) 상당을 손금불산입한 것은 타당하다고 할 것이다.

[4]

Even if the claim in this case did not cause bad debt under each subparagraph of Article 62(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the disposal loss of the claim in this case, which falls under the provisional payment without office, for the following reasons, cannot be included in the loss for the business year of 2007 of the plaintiff.

(1) 종전에는 대손충당금을 계상할 수 있는 채권에 대한 별도의 제한이 없었다가，▲ 1997. 12. 13. 법률 제5418호로 「법인세법」 제14조 제1항19)이 개정되면서 "외상매 출금 ・ 대여금 ・ 기타 이에 준하는 채권(제18조의3 제3항 각 호의 1에 해당하는 내국법인의 경우에는 대통령령이 정하는 채무보증으로 인하여 발생한 구상채권을 제외한다) 이 있는 내국법인이 각 사업연도에 계상한 대손충당금은 대통령령이 정하는 바에 의하여 계산한 금액의 범위 내에서 이를 손금에 산입한다"라고 규정하여 괄호 안의 내용이 추가됨으로써， 주권상장법인， 협회등록법인， 「독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률」 에 의한 대규모기업집단에 속하는 내국법인에 한하여 예외적으로 채무보증으로 인한 구상 채권에 대하여는 '대손충당금'을 계상할 수 있는 채권에서 제외되었고，▲ 그 후 대손 충당금에 대한 「법인세법」 규정이 위와 같이 개정됨에 따라 1997. 12. 31. 대통령령 제15564호로 개정된 「법인세법 시행령」 에 의하여 제21조 단서20)의 규정이 신설되면서 채무보증으로 인한 구상채권에 대한 '대손금'도 예외적으로 손금 산업 대상에서 제외되었다. 그 후 1998. 12. 28. 법률 제5581호로 「법인세법」 이 전문개정되면서 대손금에 관한 규정이 「법인세법 시행령」 에서 「법인세법」 (제34조 제2항)으로 옮겨오면서，21) 대상 법인의 범위가 주권상장법인， 협회등록법인， 「독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률」 에 의한 대규모기업집단에 속하는 내국법인에서 내국법인 전체로 확대되었다.

(2) Even in cases where allowances for bad debts are established in relation to claims for indemnity arising from debt guarantees, and bad debts are met, it is difficult to deem that the guarantor who has performed the guaranteed obligations acquires claims for adequate amount of reimbursement to the principal debtor or other joint and several sureties, and that the performance of the guaranteed obligations does not immediately lead to the occurrence of losses of the guarantor who has reduced the amount of reimbursement as a result of the performance of the guaranteed obligations. The legislative intent also lies in inducing the construction of the financial structure and facilitating the restructuring of the company by preventing excessive loans arising from debt guarantees from the above methods from deteriorating the financial structure and the increase of social costs arising from the chain of bankruptcy and by facilitating the restructuring of the company by using the indemnity bonds as losses. Meanwhile, even though the indemnity bonds arising from debt guarantees are not recognized as bad debts and are disposed of at low prices and thus, it is difficult for the company holding the indemnity bonds to be actually recognized as losses in the calculation of losses, and the provisions of Article 34(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act to exclude the bad debts debt allowances from the calculation of losses of the company.

(3) Meanwhile, as seen earlier, in Article 61(5)23 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 20619, Feb. 22, 2008, the disposal loss of the "bonds" subject to the provisions of Article 34(3) of the Corporate Tax Act shall not be included in the calculation of losses, and as such, in addition to the claim for indemnity arising from debt guarantee (Article 34(3)1 and (1) of the Corporate Tax Act), the disposal loss of the non-business-related bonds (Article 34(3)2 and (2) of the Corporate Tax Act) was clearly stipulated that the non-deductible debt reserve is not included in the calculation of losses. Since Article 34(2) of the previous Corporate Tax Act, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 9267, Dec. 26, 2008, was deleted, Article 19-2 of the Corporate Tax Act, newly inserted as to the non-deductible debt reserve as prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 2194, Feb. 21, 2009, 209.

(4) The circumstances in question are as follows in light of the relevant laws and regulations as seen earlier.

• If an irrecoverable claim is disposed of in the form of bad debts and is disposed of in the form of a disposal loss of claims by selling it, all shall be included in the loss of the corporation for the pertinent business year. Therefore, there is no essential difference in economic effects or tax treatment on the corporation.

• As seen earlier, it is necessary to prevent the inclusion of non-collectionable claims in deductible expenses in the form of disposal loss of claims for the same reason, even if they are normally disposed of as bad debts in the form of disposal loss for the pertinent business year by excluding them from those subject to bad debts in order to achieve the legal purpose of entry under tax law, and for the same reason, only the provisional payment made regardless of their business to persons with a special relationship.

• Article 61(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which was in force at the time when the Plaintiff’s corporate tax liability liability was established for 2007 business year, provides that in the case of disposing of claims for indemnity arising from debt guarantee in the form of disposal loss, such claims shall not be included in the calculation of losses as in the form of bad debts. It is difficult to find any reasonable ground to view otherwise as to claims for provisional payment without duties

• Article 34 (3) of the Corporate Tax Act, which stipulates that a corporation's liability for indemnity arising from a corporation's subrogation for bad debts shall be excluded from the amount of bad debts and bad debts and shall not be included in the calculation of losses as a whole to domestic corporations, was newly established under the same legislative purpose to enhance the soundness of the corporation by suppressing the outflow of corporate funds, and accordingly, it is necessary to treat the same legal effect as well.

• However, Article 61(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17457, Dec. 31, 2001; Presidential Decree No. 17457) provides that where claims for indemnity arising from debt guarantee are disposed of in the form of disposal loss, it shall not be included in the calculation of losses as well as where it is disposed of as bad debts, and Article 1 and Article 2 of the Addenda (Article 1 and Article 2) provides that the general application period of the Enforcement Decree of the above amendment was not provided, but does not provide for the separate application period of the above amended provision.

• For the same reason, Article 61(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 1120619, Feb. 22, 2008; Article 61(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1120619, Feb. 22, 2008; Article 34(3) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the disposal loss of bonds subject to the provisions of Article 34(3) of the Corporate Tax Act shall not be included in deductible expenses; however, Article 2 of the Addenda (Article 2) provides that only the general application time of the Enforcement Decree of the above amended Enforcement Decree and does not provide for the separate application time of the above amended provision). Furthermore, since the provisional payment or the interest paid

(5) In full view of the above, even in cases where the Plaintiff sold bonds with no business related to the instant claim that was paid to AADF regardless of its business, and disposed of in the form of a disposal loss with respect to the instant claim, it shall not be admitted to deductible expenses pursuant to Article 28(1)4 (b) and Article 34(3)29 of the Corporate Tax Act as well as the main sentence of Article 53(1)29 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 53(3)30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was made by an unreasonable expansion and analogical interpretation, and thus, it cannot be permitted as it violates the no taxation without law, is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition that imposed corporate tax for the business year 2007 is legitimate because the Plaintiff denied accounting accounting that included the instant claim in deductible expenses by disposing of it as a loss from the disposal of claims and the Plaintiff did not include the provisional payment in deductible expenses for AADF, who is a person with a special relationship.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is to be dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.