Suwon District Court-2018-Gu Partnership-61650 (Law No. 23, 2018)

Examination-corporation-2017-001 ( December 12, 2017)

Non-Inclusion of provisional payments in expenses of a person with a special relationship

(1) It is reasonable to view the issue of disposal loss and the bad debt of the provisional payment unrelated to the business as the disposal loss, insofar as the loan of this case constitutes a provisional payment unrelated to the business, since it converted into equity and disposed of in the form of stock disposal loss after selling it.

Article 19-2 (Non-Inclusion of Bad Debts in Loss)

2018Nu63459 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

○○○○ Incorporated Company

○○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2018Guhap61650 Decided August 23, 2018

.04.26

.06.21

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 rejection of correction of KRW 2,780,415,770 for the business year 2015 against the plaintiff on October 12, 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons to be stated in this judgment are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following additions or dismissals. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ Part 12 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be subject to the exclusion of value-added tax from "value-added tax" in separate form of "value-added tax."

○, on No. 4, the first instance court's decision No. 5 (does are excluded from driving; hereinafter the same shall apply) "DD Korea Co., Ltd." shall be incorporated into "Agricultural Company DD Korea Co., Ltd.".

○ No. 4, No. 14, and No. 11, No. 3, of the first instance judgment, respectively, are subject to the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 16008, Dec. 24, 2018).

○ Article 3 of the Loan Convention shall be amended to "Article 4 of the Loan Convention" in Part 7 of the first instance judgment.

○ On December 24, 2013, the first instance court’s decision No. 8, 13, stating that “the Plaintiff did not make any effort to recover the claim” was “the Plaintiff, from 2008 to 2012, continuously suffered net loss of the company of this case, as well as from December 24, 2013, without making any effort to recover the claim, such as establishing collateral security at the factory of this case even after the cancellation of the right to collateral security by the National Bank, which was established on the factory of this case.”

The following is added to the 8th judgment of the first instance court. (The company of this case can freely use the money reverted to the company of this case by mixing it with other cash, and the company of this case actually uses the money borrowed from the plaintiff to the company of this case in addition to the creditor's repayment to the creditor's bank, and the company of this case can exercise the right of security against the company of this case by subrogation when the plaintiff directly pays it to the creditor's bank. However, this right cannot be exercised when the plaintiff lends it to the company of this case to the company of this case. (In light of the above, the company of this case cannot be seen as the same as the plaintiff directly pays it to the creditor's bank).

Article 19-2 (2) 1 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1608, Dec. 24, 2018); Article 19-2 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the debt guarantee for a person who is not a specially related person under Article 87 in connection with construction business and telecommunications business shall be exceptionally included in deductible expenses, and thus, Article 19-2 (6) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the debt guarantee for a person who is not a specially related person under Article 87 in connection with construction business" shall be included in deductible expenses even if it is bad debt under the joint and several surety contract of this case. However, Article 19-2 (6) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27828, Feb. 3, 2017; Presidential Decree No. 2010, Feb. 28, 2017>

00,000,000 won for bonds 4,000,000 won in accordance with Section 6 of the first instance court decision No. 9

§ 30,00.

○ No. 12 of the judgment of the first instance court, the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27828, Feb. 3, 2017) was amended to the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

In addition, "Additional Acts and subordinate statutes" shall be added to "related Acts and subordinate statutes" of the judgment of the first instance court in the attached Form of this Court.

2. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.