logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.11.17 2015구합22464
법인세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 1, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) incorporated the trade name of “F&C Holdings”; (b) merged C&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C&C”) on June 29, 201; and (c) changed its trade name to “C&C Co., Ltd.”

B. On October 201, the Plaintiff filed an application with the court for a payment order of the outstanding claim amounting to KRW 33,858,486,508 (hereinafter “the instant claim”) against Edi-Urban Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Edi-Urban Development”), which had been held prior to the instant merger, and received final judgment. On November 23, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application for compulsory execution based on the payment order, and filed an application for compulsory execution with the Seoul Central District Court for a compulsory execution order. Based on this, the Plaintiff filed a report on the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax by including the instant claim in deductible expenses as bad debt for the business year 2011.

C. From November 26, 2012 to December 31, 2012, the commissioner of the Daegu Regional Tax Office conducted a partial investigation of the Plaintiff’s corporate tax for the business year 2010 to December 31, 2012. Before the instant merger, the director of the Daegu Regional Tax Office denied KRW 41,325,305,611 as bad debt debt amount for the business year 2011, as the Plaintiff did not recognize bad debt amount of the instant claim as bad debt pursuant to Article 19-2(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24357, Feb. 15, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24357, Feb. 15, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 27831, Jul. 7, 2017; Presidential Decree No. 24577, Apr. 3, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 25070, Jul.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 10, 2013, but was dismissed on April 1, 2015.

【Ground of recognition” has no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, and Eul's 1 through 3.

arrow