2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. The Plaintiff is an employee of SSS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “SSS”) who manufactures and sells automobile parts on the ○○○○○-ro ○○○○○○○○-ro, ○○○○○○○○○○○, and is a member of the Korea Metal Trade Union SS Branch (hereinafter referred to as “instant Trade Union”).

B. The SS and the instant labor union agreed on September 25, 2012 with the following contents (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”) with respect to the violent labor disputes that occurred among the labor disputes that occurred due to collective bargaining negotiations on wage figures, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “agreement”). The agreement written in this case is referred to as the “agreement on September 25, 2012,” and “agreement on September 25, 2012.”

The consolation money for service violent incidents shall be paid in advance for 7 million won per member (7 million won per member) and shall be paid in KRW 2 million after the on-site recovery period (Provided, That the payment method shall be the payment method under mutual agreement).

C. According to the instant agreement, SS paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 9,202,00,000,000 on September 27, 2012 and KRW 2,202,00 on February 19, 2013 (hereinafter “instant amount”) to the Plaintiff and reflected it in the year-end settlement for tax year 2012 by deeming it as taxable income.

D. On July 15, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction with the Defendant for refund of KRW 1,375,590, out of global income tax for the year 2012 that was already paid to the Defendant on the ground that it was not subject to taxation under the Income Tax Act.

E. On September 16, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the refusal of the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that “the dispute amount is not a non-taxable income (including income that is not considered as earned income) falling under Article 12 of the Income Tax Act” (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”).

F. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on March 2, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion of the party executives;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The key issue funds paid by SS as consolation money to the Plaintiff shall not be deemed as damages for mental damage caused by illegal violence of the company, i.e., earned income subject to taxation or other income subject to taxation, but the instant rejection disposition based on the premise that the key issue funds are subject to taxation shall be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The key issue point is not compensation for mental damage caused by violence but compensation for long time between labor and management, and it should be regarded as benefits having the nature of encouragement money or consolation money to encourage workers to work. The plaintiff has the right to claim damages against SS separately from the payment of the key issue point of view. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for correction is without merit.

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Facts of recognition;

(a) Progress of collective bargaining;

1) On April 2, 2012, the instant union demanded SS to amend the provisions of 42 provisions of the collective agreement relating to the increase of 151,696 won per month of basic salary, various allowances, holidays, leaves, industrial safety and health, and welfare, as well as collective bargaining over SS and 12 times from around that time.

2) However, most of the collective bargaining proposals presented by the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission did not comply with the intention of labor and management. Meanwhile, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission applied for mediation on June 15, 2012 after the 7th negotiation, but on June 25, 2012, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission did not present a wage increase plan and did not present a specific proposal for a collective agreement under supplementary bargaining. Thus, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission could not find an agreed point because there was a substantial difference between the parties to labor and management, on the ground that the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission did not present a proposal for mediation.

(b) Industrial actions and lock-out;

1) The instant labor union decided an industrial action in accordance with the result of the pro-con voting of the metal labor union branch from June 25, 2012 to June 26, 2012, and joined the industrial action by starting 4 hours to start 4 hours from June 27, 2012. From around that time, the industrial action was conducted by the partial strike, etc. from around that time to July 26, 2012.

2) On July 26, 2012, SS filed a lock-out report with the In-house Regional Employment and Labor Office, the Gyeonggi-do Regional Labor Council, and the ○○-gu Office. On July 27, 2012, SS commenced a lock-out on July 27, 2012 (hereinafter “instant lock-out”).

3) around 01:00 on July 27, 2012, members of the instant trade union came to know of the fact that SS lock-outs were carried out and carried out at the place of business, and that SS business was integrated into the place of business.

4) MM, a labor management director of the SS, intended to mobilize the members of the KK corporation (hereinafter referred to as “KK”), which entered into a security service contract with the SS, to get out of the place of business, to find out the members of the staff who resisted and resisted in front of the workplace. On July 27, 2012, 204:30, KK’s security service personnel, who were in possession of a booming view to the union members, such as the failure, difficulty, fire extinguishing, etc. while being displayed to the union members, and destroying the windows of the factory building. On the other hand, the service guards continued to enter the SS factory building into the place of business, and went out of the place of business by exercising violence, such as the operation of the car level, which is the parts produced in the SS, to the union members, and the operation of the labor union and the labor union members by exercising the right to wear out of the place of business.

(c) Preparation of the labor-management agreement and related criminal cases;

1) After that, SS revoked a lock-out on or around September 23, 2012, and agreed on September 25, 2012 and October 24, 2012 and December 18, 2012 as follows.

A) Major contents of the instant agreement dated September 25, 2012

The above-mentioned labor-management agreement was entered in September 25, 2012.

B) The main contents of the agreement on pending issues as of October 24, 2012

(1) Matters concerning treatment, hospital expenses, and accommodations that have occurred during the period of 7/27

- The Company shall bear medical expenses and recognize the progress for the patients occurring during the lock-out period.

-the consolation money shall be paid to patients with labor-management consultation.

(2) Cases related to various leaves, leave for continuous service, and light investigation during the lock-out period.

- Continuous leave for continuous service shall be used by the end of December 2012, and holiday leave shall be used within 11 months.

(3) Personal goods, vehicles damage.

- With respect to vehicle damage, the company shall repair the vehicle and deal with personal goods in consultation with the practice.

In relation to lock-out on July 27, 2012, labor-management will withdraw all civil and criminal cases filed by labor-management and the superior organization to labor-management and labor-management with the exception of wage payment litigation (mutual punishment is not sought, and if necessary, mutually cooperates with the submission of data that the other party's prior action is to be taken) and will not impose any responsibility in the future.

C) Special labor-management agreement dated December 18, 2012

2) Meanwhile, as the facts charged, MM, a management director of the SS, was indicted for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapons, etc.) at the Suwon District Court Branch 2012 Godan1936, which was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for four years from the same court on December 14, 2012, and filed an appeal with Suwon District Court 2013No-○○○○○○○○, which was sentenced to two years and six months from May 16, 2013, and again filed an appeal with the Supreme Court 2013Do○○○○○○○○○○ on July 25, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “related criminal case”).

D. Progress of related civil cases

1) Workers of SS, including the Plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against SS to pay wages during the lock-out period of this case and damages for delay thereof. On the premise that “the evidence submitted by SS alone makes it difficult to recognize the lawfulness of the lock-out,” the court paid the unpaid wages under the premise of the instant agreement. As such, “The settlement contract was concluded or the above agreement should be deducted from the worker’s claim amount,” the labor-management agreement on September 25, 2012 stated that “the agreed amount should be paid as compensation for security violence,” regardless of the worker’s position and tenure of office. At the time of the instant agreement, SS was paid on the premise that the lock-out is legitimate, and thus, it appears that the payment of unpaid wages was not considered, and as a result, it appears that there was no obligation to pay the unpaid wages to SP workers during the lock-out period of this case’s lock-out period in light of the fact that ○○ employees and SS companies did not have any obligation to pay the unpaid wages to S 1.

2) According to the above judgment, SS paid wages to workers on August 28, 2014 during the lock-out period. In the case of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 8,370,560 separately in addition to the key amount.

E. Plaintiff’s damage and its compensation relationship

1) According to the medical examination report of injury against the Plaintiff issued on August 23, 2012 by the doctor LL LL of the GIC Hospital, the Plaintiff stated “the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the area of trine base, multi-scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sc

2) The Plaintiff did not claim physical and mental damages due to the instant lock-out and the act of violence related thereto, except for the Plaintiff received KRW 8,370,560,00, during the lock-out period based on the results of the instant civil case from SS, as well as the amount of KRW 9,202,00,000, which was not paid during the lock-out period.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10, purport of the whole pleadings

5. Determination

A. The nature of the instant agreement

In light of the facts revealed in the above, the following circumstances, i.e., ① the closure of the workplace of this case and the violence related thereto, resulting in the injury of the workers of SS including the plaintiff, ② MM, a management director of SS, was prosecuted for the above facts constituting the crime and convicted of the sentence. SS appears to have been submitted as sentencing materials stating that the agreement between the union of this case and the union of this case was concluded and the agreement was reached between the victims in the above related criminal case. ③ In the related civil case, the agreement of this case was judged as the monetary amount in the name of damages not included in the non-paid wages during the lock-out period. ④ In full view of the following circumstances, the plaintiff did not claim damages for damages due to the lock-out of this case and the violence related thereto with the lock-out of this case, it is reasonable to view that the agreement of this case has the nature of paying damages for each worker of SS including the plaintiff.

B. Sub-committee

The earned income under the provisions of Article 20 of the Income Tax Act means the remuneration which a worker, etc. receives by furnishing his labor in a non-independent position.

In the case of this case, as long as the issue amount is considered as compensation for damages caused by illegal acts as stated above, the above amount does not constitute earned income under Article 20 of the Income Tax Act, and under the current taxation system of the Income Tax Act taking the principle of listing the source of income, the issue amount cannot be considered as income subject to taxation. Thus, the rejection disposition of this case is unlawful on different premise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is justified.

6. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.