Appellate Decision 201J 1210 (Law No. 18, 2011)

The rejection disposition of correction is legitimate because it cannot be viewed as an irrecoverable bond, and it does not constitute a bad debt under the Value-Added Tax

It is not sufficient to recognize the existence of the grounds for recognizing non-recoverable claims such as the extinctive prescription of claims based on the payment, and the non-recovered bills received by the plaintiff are appropriated as necessary expenses, and the rejection disposition is legitimate as there is no evidence to find

2011Guhap3089 global income and revocation of disposition

KimA

Head of Changwon Tax Office

March 29, 2012

April 26, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 000 and global income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2006 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff received each purchase tax invoice of KRW 000 and KRW 000 during the value-added tax period of the first half of 2006 from Nonparty BB metal, and reported and paid comprehensive income tax by including it in necessary expenses.

B. On September 6, 2010, the Defendant deemed each of the above tax invoices as non-real transaction data, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of the total income tax of KRW 000 and the total income tax of KRW 000 in 207 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On November 15, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) included the sum of KRW 000 of the credit sales account for the date when it was 2006, KRW 000, KRW 000, and KRW 000,000, which was received from DD (hereinafter “D”); and (b) the EE industry (hereinafter “E industry”) in bad debts, as necessary expenses, in which it filed an application for rectification of global income tax for the year 2006 and 2007, but was rejected on December 27, 2010.

D. The Plaintiff appealed, and filed an objection on November 30, 2010, and filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on March 22, 201, but was dismissed on July 18, 201.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, and entry of Gap evidence 1, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) In 2006 and 2007, the Plaintiff did not include the instant amount in the necessary expenses at the global income tax return in 2006 and 2007, and the Plaintiff had already completed the business closure report and had no way to reflect the instant amount in the necessary expenses, and the instant disposition is unreasonable.

2) Even if the price in the instant case cannot be reflected in the necessary expenses, and as regards the portion corresponding to the Plaintiff’s value-added tax return amount, the Defendant’s obligation to refund the amount should be considered.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

1) On February 17, 2006, the Plaintiff opened a wholesale market and retail business with the trade name of "FF" in 000, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (OFF) and closed down business on June 30, 2007.

2) The Plaintiff had a credit account receivable of 000 won in 2006, and the credit account balance at the time of October 19, 2006, which was the cessation date of CCTV.

3) The Plaintiff had credit sales of 00 won in 2006 and 000 won in 2007 with respect to D, while two promissory notes equivalent to 00 won that the Plaintiff received from D on June 27, 2007 were processed on November 20, 2007 and November 30, 2007 respectively.

4) The Plaintiff had credit account sales of KRW 000 in 2006, and KRW 000 in 2007 for EE industry, but the Plaintiff, as well as two promissory notes, received from E industry on June 30, 2007, were treated in default on October 25, 2007.

5) DD and EE industries continue to conduct business without closing their business.

[Ground of Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

First, this part of the plaintiff's assertion that the illegality of the disposition that did not reflect the price in the necessary expenses is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the extinctive prescription of the underlying claim in this case was completed, and that the amount equivalent to the defaulted bill received from D, and EE industry was appropriated in the necessary expenses, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Next, this part of the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's obligation to refund under the Value-Added Tax Act has occurred, and that there is no other evidence to recognize it. Next, it is difficult to find that there is no evidence to support the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's obligation to refund under the Value-Added Tax Act has occurred, and that there is no evidence to support the plaintiff's obligation to pay bad debt under Article 17-2 (1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 23595, Feb. 2, 2012).

(e)Indivate;

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed for reasons.