Voluntary retirement is basically subject to many employees who have a number of years of continuous service (the actual system).

L0 employees retired from the instant voluntary retirement shall be based on the period of service before and after the full-time conversion.

The number of years of continuous service was at least 10 years, and in the case of L4 employees or father, the number of years of continuous service.

B does not require voluntary retirement, but all years of continuous service were met at least 20 years of continuous service.

Therefore, the special retirement allowance, etc. of this case has the nature of public service compensation for long-term service.

must be viewed.

C) TheCC Bank has not changed to L0 positions as a regular employee, and interim settlement of retirement pay.

L1, 2, 3, 4 employees and vice-heads who received L1, 2, 3, 4, the number of years of service from the date of the first entry

calculated and calculated retirement income deduction for special retirement allowances, and the special retirement allowances, etc. in this case.

Considering that the aforementioned employees have the character of public service compensation for this long-term service, the same applies to the above employees.

In other words, there is no reasonable ground to treat the plaintiffs who are long-term employees differently from the above employees.

D) Some L0-class transition employees who paid retirement income tax in the same manner as the Plaintiffs are subject to taxation.

The Office filed a request for the correction of income tax to the same effect as the instant lawsuit and received a decision of acceptance; and

On July 8, 2016, the date of the above decision, with respect to L0 employees who retired desiredly after the above decision is made.

The retirement income tax was calculated by recognizing the period before and after the transition as the number of years of continuous service.

E) The desired retirees of L0 level including the Plaintiffs are employed from the date of full-time conversion to the date of retirement.

A simple approximately one year and six months. If the special retirement allowances, etc. in this case were to be converted to regular employees, then the special retirement allowances, etc.

the amount of special retirement under the said Schedule, if it is deemed that the person has the nature of the compensation for the Corporation;

(30) A special retirement allowance equivalent to the wages of 30 months for the period of service of approximately one year and six months at the time of application;

It leads to a natural conclusion with payment.

F) On the other hand, the defendant's office in the period of work for calculating "retirement allowances" when converting the plaintiffs into regular workers.

agreed that the period of service does not include the period of service, and 'L0' employees at the time of the voluntary retirement of this case

In the case of continuous service (the last one year and six months) it announced that the highest retirement income tax rate is applied as the number of years of continuous service is short.

In calculating the income tax of this case, the period of service before the plaintiffs' conversion into regular employment shall be the length of service.

argument that such agreement or guidance may not be included, but a special retirement allowance that is not a basic retirement allowance.

It is unclear whether it is also applicable to, and even if so, such circumstances may only arise.

Therefore, the interpretation of ‘the number of years of continuous service as prescribed by the tax laws and regulations' does not vary.

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiffs' claims are with merit, and they are accepted as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.

2. On January 2, 2017, the rejection disposition by the head of ○○ Tax Office against Plaintiff BB regarding a request for correction of the tax base and amount of tax shall be revoked.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

The provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Gu Office shall apply.

A. On February 2, 2002, Plaintiff AA entered the CC Bank (hereinafter “CC Bank”) as contractual staff on December 1, 1998, and thereafter, on January 1, 2014, Plaintiff BB was transferred to “L0-class regular employees” according to the agreement between the CC Bank and the trade union.

B. On May 2015, the labor and management of theCC bank entered into an agreement on the implementation of the desired retirement (hereinafter “the instant desired retirement”), and accordingly, on June 17, 2015, the Plaintiffs received retirement pay (hereinafter “the instant special retirement allowance, etc.”) as follows, while retired desiredly from theCC bank, as follows:

C. Meanwhile, while paying retirement allowances to the Plaintiffs, theCC withheld Plaintiff AA 14,940,855 won and Plaintiff BB 20,326,364 won (hereinafter “the instant income tax”). During that process, the Plaintiffs’ continuous service period is two years (from January 1, 2014, which was before regular employment, until June 17, 2015, which was before regular employment) and calculated the amount of deduction for retirement allowance, etc. under Article 48 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1358, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter “former Income Tax Act”).

D. Accordingly, Plaintiff AA demanded the head of Defendant ○○○ Tax Office to reduce the retirement income tax to KRW 3,215,873, since the Plaintiff’s length of service, which is the basis for calculating the instant income tax, was not two years, not 14 years (from February 2, 2002, which was the first date of employment to June 17, 2015), and accordingly, the Plaintiff AA demanded that the retirement income tax be reduced to KRW 3,215,873.

E. In addition, Plaintiff BB also requested Defendant BB head of the instant tax office to reduce the retirement income tax to KRW 4,095,009 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant claim for correction”). The Plaintiff BB’s continuous service period, which serves as the basis for calculating the income tax of this case, is not two years but 17 years (from December 1, 1998, the first membership date, until June 17, 2015, which is the date of retirement), and accordingly, the Plaintiff BB’s legitimate retirement income is calculated as KRW 4,095,009 (hereinafter referred to as “instant claim for correction”).

F. On October 26, 2016, the head of ○○ Tax Office rendered a disposition to dismiss the instant request for correction on January 2, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). The Plaintiffs filed a tax appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition, but received a decision to dismiss the instant disposition on May 11, 2017. The Plaintiffs did not have any dispute as to the grounds for recognition, and each of the entries in Gap’s subparagraphs 1 through 5, 16, 19, 20, 3, 4, and 6 (including various numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

Unlike the basic retirement allowances, the instant special retirement allowances, etc. have the characteristic of public service compensation for the long-term continuous service from the date of the initial employment to the date of retirement. Therefore, the “year of continuous service,” which serves as the basis for calculating the amount of retirement income deduction under Article 48 of the former Income Tax Act, should include all the period of employment before and after the Plaintiffs’ transition to regular employment. Therefore, the instant disposition that calculated the amount of retirement income deduction by deeming

2) The defendants' assertion

The special retirement allowances, etc. of this case cannot be deemed to have the nature of contributing to the long-term continuous service from the first entry to the retirement of the plaintiffs, and the "year of continuous service, which serves as the basis for calculating the amount of retirement income deduction under Article 48 of the former Income Tax Act, includes only the period of employment after the plaintiffs

B. Determination

1) According to Article 48 of the former Income Tax Act, the amount of retirement income deduction according to the number of years of continuous service is to be calculated, and the issue of this case is whether the period of service before the plaintiffs' conversion into regular employment should be included in the "year of continuous service" in calculating the amount of retirement income deduction pursuant to Article 48 of

2) Considering the following facts and circumstances that are acknowledged in light of the following facts and circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4, 8, 9, 11 through 20 (including paper numbers) and the entire purport of the pleadings as a result of the order to submit documents to theCC bank, the instant special retirement allowances, etc. have the characteristic of meritorious compensation for long-term service from the date of the plaintiff's initial entry to the date of retirement. Thus, the number of years of service, which serves as the basis for calculating the amount of retirement income deduction under Article 48 of the former Income Tax Act, should include both the period of service before and after the plaintiffs' full-time conversion. Therefore, the instant disposition that calculated the amount of retirement income deduction by deeming only the period of service after

A) The Plaintiffs, who worked as contractual workers at theCC Bank, were converted to a full-time suspension worker in the form of retirement and new employment on January 1, 2014. However, in that process, the Plaintiffs continued to perform almost the same tasks as the full-time workers before and after the full-time conversion. As such, the continuity of the Plaintiffs’ work is recognized before and after

B) The subjects of the instant desired retirement and the special retirement amount (which is calculated by multiplying the number of months of payment by the monthly salary) are as listed below. However, in the case of L0 employees, such as the Plaintiffs, the subject was formally selected on the basis of birth date rather than the number of years of continuous service. However, in the case of L1, 2, and 3 employees, it is known that the number of years of continuous service is 15 to 20 years of voluntary retirement requirements.