Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap14999 ( December 22, 2011)

Interest expenses, etc. paid shall not be included in necessary expenses as they are not directly related to the business income of the plaintiff.

(1) It is legitimate that a corporation that acquired the land of a development project receives the instant loan from the corporation’s liabilities to account the interest on the loan as a cost, and that the interest on the loan, which is the subject of development, shall not be included in deductible expenses, and that a claim for reimbursement arising from the repayment of the interest on the loan, etc. by the corporation that acquired the land on behalf of the person that acquired the

2011Nu36137 Revocation of revocation of a request for rectification of income tax

XX

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap14999 decided September 22, 2011

April 5, 2012

May 3, 2012

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 on July 6, 2010 as to the portion exceeding KRW 000 out of the global income tax of KRW 000 for the plaintiff for the year 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as that of the court of first instance except for dismissal as follows. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A part used for the judgment of the court of first instance;

O) The second 5th 5th “00 won of global income tax” (as seen below 2.c. 11), and the second 5th 5th 12th 12 (7th 10th 7th 2006 below), the Plaintiff’s transfer price of 1268 OOdong 1268 large 5,39.9m2 (the instant land) to SOdong 1268 large 5,39.9m2 as the total amount of business income shall be added.

O 5th YYO 9th Sheet “Y” as “M”; 10th Meet 13th Meet 16th Meet 16th Meet.

O The second sentence of the 11st sentence (from No. 11 to No. 12) is as follows:

[The necessary expenses stipulated in Article 55 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act refers to the expenses directly related to the occurrence of income. Therefore, a claim that can be included in a bad debt, which is one of the necessary expenses, shall also be directly related to the occurrence of income. Meanwhile, in light of the purport of Article 55 (2) of the above Enforcement Decree, a bad debt included in necessary expenses, when calculating income amount, shall be limited to a claim that is objectively confirmed to have been impossible to collect in that year (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1418, Nov. 28, 1997). However, in light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff's total amount of income in 2006 was 00 won for the transfer price of the land in XX, and it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff's claim for indemnity against O is directly related to the occurrence of the above income, and thus, it shall not be included in the scope of a claim that can be included in necessary expenses (On the other hand, it shall not affect the conclusion of the plaintiff's claim for redemption 21201 or 36).

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.