beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018. 09. 07. 선고 2017누81993 판결

임원퇴직급여규정이 특정임원에게 법인의 자금을 분여하기 위한 일시적인 방편으로 마련된 것이라면, 법령에서 정한 임원퇴직급여 규정에 해당하지 아니함[국승]

Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Suwon District Court-2016-Gu 66811 ( October 24, 2017)

Title

If the regulations on retirement allowances for officers have been established temporarily to distribute the corporation's funds to a specific officer, it does not fall under the provisions on retirement allowances for officers under the laws and regulations.

Summary

The provision on the payment of retirement allowances for officers of the instant case is not intended to pay retirement benefits in actual terms of work, but is merely temporary measure to distribute the corporation's funds to the officers by lending the form of retirement benefits.

Related statutes

Article 26 (Non-Inclusion of Excessive Expenses in Calculation of Losses)

Cases

2017Nu8193. Revocation of disposition of notice of change in income amount

Plaintiff and appellant

OEFC Co., Ltd.

Defendant, Appellant

O commissioner of regional tax office

Judgment of the first instance court

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Guhap6811 Decided October 24, 2017

Conclusion of Pleadings

June 15, 2018

Imposition of Judgment

September 7, 2018

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's each disposition of KRW 1,451,531,742 for the plaintiff on January 2, 2015, which was rendered against the plaintiff on January 2, 2009, including KRW 2,350,63,875 for the year 2010, and KRW 95,847,940 for the year 201.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this decision are as follows: (a) the fact-finding and decision of the first instance court is just and the payment of retirement allowances to OO et al. for the previous non-performing loans is not the purpose of the distribution of corporate funds; and (b) so long as O has received the above retirement allowances from OO to the plaintiff account again, it is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's argument that it does not constitute the outflow of the company. Therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for addition of the decision that is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's argument that it does not constitute the outflow of the company.

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.