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

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the modification of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows 2. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Revised parts

○ 3 10 on the right side of the 10th "........" add:

In addition, Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the above Amendment (No. 26067, February 3, 2015) provides that "This Decree shall apply from the income portion generated in the taxable period to which the enforcement date of this Decree belongs."

○ From 10 up to 11 words “the 10th Amendment” of the 5th 10th Amendment shall be as follows:

Article 22(3) of the amended Income Tax Act, which is a law that is stipulated at the time, is reasonable to calculate the amount of tax through a reasonable interpretation of Article 22(3) of the same Act. Article 22(3) of the current Income Tax Act provides that “The amount of retirement income to be paid when assumed that he/she retired on December 31, 201, is prescribed by Presidential Decree” refers to the amount of retirement income prescribed by Presidential Decree and delegates the specific contents to Presidential Decree. However, Article 22(3) of the amended Income Tax Act, which applies to the instant disposition, provides that “if there is any retirement income to be paid when it is assumed that he/she retired on December 31, 201,” without delegation by Presidential Decree, Article 22(3) of the amended Income Tax Act provides that “if there is any retirement income to be paid

○ 5 Up to 6 1 p.m.’ from the 6th place of the last 5th place of action shall be amended as follows:

Article 42-2 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which was newly established at the time of the establishment of the tax liability, cannot be retroactively applied solely on the ground that the amended Act was amended favorably to taxpayers unless there was a separate transitional provision on retroactive application (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du2414, Oct. 27, 2006). The foregoing provision does not provide a separate transitional provision on retroactive application of the aforementioned provision in the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree at the time of the establishment of the aforementioned provision. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that Article 42-2 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which was newly established, ought to be retroactively applied at the time of Kim○’s retirement.

○ 6 1 et al. by inserting the following:

5) Although the Plaintiff limited the interim settlement under Article 8 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, which is a mandatory provision, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that when calculating the amount of retirement income by assumption of retirement benefits as of December 31, 201, such as the Defendant’s calculation method, it is unfair because the proviso of Article 22(3) of the amended Income Tax Act concerns the amount of retirement income of “executive” regardless of the party’s intent, it is difficult to conclude that the provision on interim settlement restriction under Article 8 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act is applied as it is.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, 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.