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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition imposing global income tax on the Plaintiff on January 6, 2015 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

(b) Grounds;

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff was employed as the chairperson of the AA Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as "the Trade Union of this case") composed of workers of AA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the company of this case") and was dismissed from the company of this case on January 2007.

B. The Plaintiff received payment from the labor union of this case from January 2007 to December 2012, 475,86,000 won in total equivalent to the Plaintiff’s ordinary wages before dismissal, in accordance with the Guarantee Fund for Guarantee of Status of the Labor Union’s Workers from January 2007 to the union’s expense.

C. On January 6, 2015, the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 139,068,060 in sum of global income tax and additional tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on September 21, 2015.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Considering the fact that it is reasonable to see the Guarantee Fund for the Status of Workers under the Labor Union Act as wage and salary income, even if there is a compensatory nature for dismissal, it is difficult to include it in the concept of ordinary cases, and the Guarantee Fund for the Status of Workers under the Labor Union Act includes Plaintiff’s union expenses as union expenses, etc., the key issue amount is not an honorarium under Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act, so the disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act refers to money and valuables provided as a means of a case in connection with administrative affairs or provision of services, etc., and whether it constitutes such money and valuables ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the motive and purpose of receiving the money and the relationship with the other party, amount, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du27288, Sept. 13, 2013; 2013Du3818, Jan. 15, 2015).

2) In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by adding the purport of the entire pleadings to the items in the health team, the above facts and evidence as to this case, Gap evidence Nos. 2, and Eul evidence No. 4, it is reasonable to view the key amount to be an earned income from the plaintiff's labor union activities, and it is reasonable to view that the issue amount is an honorarium under Article 21 (1) 17 of the Income Tax Act, since the plaintiff was dismissed from the company of this case while performing labor union activities and was paid for a livelihood compensation

A) The main contents of the Guarantee of Status (No. 2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (Evidence A) are as follows, and Article 10 (Criteria for Compensation) provides for the duty to work at school, the duty to work at association, etc.

B) However, the case holding that since the Guarantee Fund is designed to minimize damage by paying living expenses or property losses to a person who suffered disadvantage due to union labor activities (Article 3), 100% of the ordinary wages before dismissal as living expenses regardless of the class or duties in the union of this case, and it is excluded from payment (Articles 10 and 14). The case held that if the Guarantee Fund provides labor services in this case, it is reasonable to exclude payment according to the degree of provision of labor, and that there is no reason to exclude payment even if it provides labor in this case. ③ If the Guarantee Fund provides labor in this case on the premise of provision of labor in this case, it is reasonable to view that it is difficult to provide compensation standards (Articles 8 and 9) for persons who suffered disadvantage due to union labor activities from 200 to 10.20 of the Labor Union of this case from 200 to 200 of the Labor Union of this case, the Plaintiff is also entitled to refund (Article 16).

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.