이익배분 성격의 상여금 및 현실적 퇴직에 해당되지 않음에도 지급한 퇴직금은 손금부인 대상임[국승]
Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) 2012Nu554, 23 January 2013)
The disposal of earned surplus in the form of bonus has been made in order to distribute the reserved profit
In view of the fact that there is no evidence to deem that there was a special contribution compared to other officers to the extent that it can justify the bonus, and that there was a resolution of payment of bonus has been after the resignation of the representative director, it is merely that bonus has taken the form of bonus for the purpose of allocating reserved profits, and the method of disposal of earned surplus actually has been determined.
2013Du4842 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition
AAAA consortium Co., Ltd.
Head of Chungcheong Tax Office
Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) Decision 2012Nu554 Decided January 23, 2013
July 12, 2013
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
Article 19(1) and the main sentence of Article 20 subparag. 1 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9267 of Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the " Corporate Tax Act") and Article 43(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21302 of Feb. 4, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act") provide that the bonus paid by the disposal of profits shall not be included in the calculation of losses in the calculation of losses, and Article 26 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the amount of bonus paid by the above disposal of profits or losses under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall not be included in the calculation of losses in the calculation of the income amount of the domestic corporation's business year." Article 43(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the plaintiff's 20% of the above amount of bonus paid to the executive officer shall not be included in the calculation of losses.
Article 44(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "retirement benefits paid to an officer or employee by a corporation shall be included in the calculation of losses only when the employee actually retires." The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, acknowledged on February 16, 2009 that the Plaintiff paid 000 won as retirement benefits (hereinafter referred to as "retirement benefits in this case") to the GangwonO on February 16, 2009, and acknowledged that the GangwonO continuously signed the Plaintiff's overall business day and internal documents, etc. after the resignation of the representative director on December 1, 2008, and that the annual salary increased in the year 2009 cannot be deemed to have been actually retired from the business year in 208. In light of the relevant provisions and records, the court below's determination was justifiable, and it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to retirement benefits or in the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules as alleged in the ground for appeal.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.