(a) Whether a corporation’s claim for promissory notes, the extinctive prescription of which has already been completed, is treated as a bad debt and included in deductible expenses for the subsequent business year (negative);

(b) Requirements for bad debt settlement of claims, the extinctive prescription under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

A. Where the extinctive prescription of promissory note bonds held by a corporation is completed, it is reasonable to view that the corresponding claim has become irrecoverable as a matter of course due to the extinction of law, regardless of whether the debtor's financial perception that it is impossible to recover assets, such as the debtor's asset status and payment ability, etc., such bad debt shall not be included in the deductible expenses for the business year in which the corresponding claim is extinguished.

B. In order to dispose of a claim, the extinctive prescription of which has been completed under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, it is sufficient if it falls under Article 9(2)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, and further, it is not necessary to re-examine whether it is an irrecoverable claim under Article 21 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the

(a) Articles 9 and 17(a) of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3123 delivered on March 13, 1990 (Gong1990,906) / A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu465 delivered on September 27, 198 (Gong1988,1352)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na14146 decided May 2, 200

Head of Guro Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu1898 delivered on November 30, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In the event the extinctive prescription of a promissory note issued by a corporation is completed, it is reasonable to view that the corresponding claim has become impossible to be recovered as a matter of course due to the extinction of law, regardless of whether or not the debtor's financial perception that it is impossible to recover assets, such as the debtor's asset status and payment ability, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the corresponding claim has become impossible to recover as a matter of course, so it shall not be included in deductible expenses for the business year in which the corporation handled as bad debt, and Article 9 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (hereinafter "Enforcement Rule") provides for bad debt disposal of claims other than those falling under subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (hereinafter "Enforcement Rule") pursuant to subparagraph 3 of Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (hereinafter "Enforcement Rule"), and if a claim falls under any of the requirements under subparagraphs of Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree, it shall not be treated as bad debt, so it shall not be considered that it constitutes bad debt under Article 9 (2) 18.38.198

Therefore, the court below's decision that the payment date of promissory notes at issue in this case from 1979 to 1983 is complete from 1982 to 1986 as the date of payment under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act is not included in the calculation of losses for the business year of 1987, which is not included in the calculation of bad debt as bad debt, since the extinctive prescription under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act is completed for three years from the date of payment from 1982 to 1986. In this case, the court below is just in holding that the corporation's accounting as bad debt cannot be included in the calculation of losses for the business year of 1987, which is treated as bad debt.

The court below did not state that the above bad debt was already included in the calculation of losses due to bad debt in the corresponding year before the business year of 1987, and that it was actually the accounting of inclusion of bad debt in the calculation of losses due to bad debt in the corresponding business year. Therefore, there is no ground to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)