beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Grounds for rejection disposition;
A. On May 14, 2008, the Plaintiff jointly and severally and severally guaranteed a loan of KRW 4 billion from Alley Doll Doll Doll Doll Doll Doll Doll Doll Doll Doll Doll Doctri Doctri Doctri Doctris Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S team Doctri Doctris”), but on December 30, 2008, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 4 billion of the above team Doctri Doctri Doctri Doctri Doctri Doctri Doctris, and around that time, included the claim of KRW 4 billion for team Doc
B. On December 31, 2008, Team Eas transferred the Plaintiff’s status of purchaser under a land sales contract concluded with A, C, D, E, E, F, G (H), I, J, K, K, M (N), name of the company,O, P, Q, R, etc. for the purpose of repaying the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff.
C. On January 14, 2009, the Plaintiff opened a board of directors to pay an intermediate payment or a balance to the land owner for the remaining company funds, thereby making it impossible to continue the new apartment construction business impossible to recover KRW 1,195,798,000, which was already paid to the land owner. Ultimately, the Plaintiff decided to dispose of the bad debt amount equivalent to the down payment (hereinafter “the instant bad debt”) out of the claim for indemnity of this case, which cannot be recovered as above, as a bad debt, and paid corporate tax for the business year 2009 by calculating the amount of income to be included in the deductible expenses.
However, on August 17, 2010, the Defendant deemed that the bad debt amount of indemnity claims arising from debt guarantee cannot be included in deductible expenses pursuant to Article 19-2 (2) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act, which provides that the bad debt amount of this case cannot be included in deductible expenses, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of corporate tax of KRW 272,641,270 for the business year 2009.
(hereinafter “instant previous disposition.” The Plaintiff asserted that the instant claim cannot be deemed as a claim for reimbursement arising from the debt guarantee with the same company, and that the instant claim cannot be deemed as a claim for reimbursement.