Incheon District Court 2014Gudan10087 (2014.09.02)

Early High Court Decision 2013J 3803 ( November 27, 2013)

In calculating the income amount, the bad debt included in the necessary expenses shall be limited to the credit, the fact that it is impossible to recover in the year in which the necessary expenses are included, is objectively confirmed.

(The same as the first instance judgment) The bad debt included in the calculation of the income amount shall not be deemed as a collateral for the debtor’s claim asserted by the Plaintiff as a collateral for the debtor’s claim asserted by the Plaintiff, because the fact of impossibility to recover in the year when the necessary expenses are included in

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses of Capital Gains)

Seoul High Court 2014Nu63802

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

Incheon District Court Decision 2014Gudan10087 Decided September 2, 2014

May 1, 2015

May 15, 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. The imposition of global income tax of KRW 00,000,000 against the Plaintiff on January 9, 2013 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

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

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following matters to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

○ The following shall be added to the 5th page 18:

Article 55 (1) 16 and 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22580, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same) asserts that Article 55 (1) 16 and 55 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act are the legal grounds for

However, Article 55 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act stipulates "claims which cannot be recovered due to a debtor's death, disappearance, unknown whereabouts, etc." as bad debts. However, in 2010, the plaintiff is also recognized as not having changed due to his/her personal condition, such as death, disappearance, unknown whereabouts, etc., and the loss of security against the debtor's insolvency or claims asserted by the plaintiff does not constitute bad debts as stipulated in the above subparagraph. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit."

2. Conclusion

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