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

The same shall apply to the order.

(a) Confirmation of a ruling of recommending reconciliation;

“○ Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking payment of wages until dismissal and reinstatement as of January 31, 2015, with respect to the case in which a Aa (the place of business, hereinafter “A”) dismissed the Plaintiff on January 31, 2015, and was sentenced to dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim by filing a lawsuit seeking payment of wages until dismissal and reinstatement as Seoul Central District Court 2015Kahap51042, Feb. 5, 2015.” The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the lawsuit and appealed as Seoul High Court 2016Na2025124, Seoul High Court. On December 20, 2016, the said court rendered a decision to recommend settlement of KRW 52,262,00 (hereinafter “the settlement of this case”) to the Plaintiff (the remaining claim of the Plaintiff was waived) and the said decision became final and conclusive on January 6, 2017.

(b) The details of deposit;

○○a Business Office asserted that the instant reconciliation amount is subject to taxation, and expressed its intent to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder after deducting the amount of withholding tax calculated by applying the tax rate under the Income Tax Act (20% of the other income tax rate + 2% of the local tax) from the said reconciliation amount.

The plaintiff is not subject to income tax under the Income Tax Act, and aa business office does not have the source of tax.

The Plaintiff asserted that the total amount of the settlement that was not collected should be paid to the Plaintiff.

An agreement was not reached between A and A. The place of business.

○○ The place of business of this case cannot be known without negligence as to whether the settlement amount in this case is subject to income subject to taxation, and the Plaintiff and the Republic of Korea (Gangnam Tax Office), the depositee in the future, upon consultation, received a withholding tax out of the said settlement amount from the legitimate right holder, and on January 31, 2017, the Seoul Eastern District Court 2017 Geum259, the amount of withholding tax amount of KRW 165,497,640 of the said settlement amount was repaid under Article 487 of the Civil Act (hereinafter “the deposit of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence, whole purport of pleading

2. Determination

A. The defendant's assertion

○ The settlement amount of this case was paid by aa business office for the purpose of settling any dispute with the Plaintiff in an early prompt and smooth manner, which constitutes other income as a honorarium under Article 21 (1) 17 of the Income Tax Act.

Even if the 00a business office won in the first instance trial, aa business office and the plaintiff obtained the benefit of early closing the dispute pending through the payment of the settlement of this case in the situation where the final failure of a lawsuit seeking nullification of dismissal cannot be filled out, and thus, the settlement of this case constitutes other income subject to taxation as a honorarium.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

In a case where a settlement in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of dismissal has been made between an employer and an employee to pay a certain amount of money to an employee during the course of the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal, the nature of such settlement shall be deemed to be the dispute settlement that is received by the employee as a substitute for waiver of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of dismissal. Although the settlement amount is calculated based on the employee’s wages, it shall not be deemed wages or retirement allowances, etc., even if the settlement amount is calculated based on the worker’s wages, etc., it shall not be deemed as wages or retirement allowances. It is difficult to regard it as a penalty or compensation received due to a breach or termination of a contract under Article 25(1)9 of the Income Tax Act, and in light of the purport of Article 49(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, it shall be deemed that a contract under the above Act refers to a property right contract and an employment contract shall be deemed not to be included in labor contract. Accordingly, the settlement amount shall not be deemed to fall under any one of the earned income, retirement income, and other income subject to taxation under the

○○ Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act refers to money and valuables provided as a case for administrative affairs or provision of services. Whether such money and valuables fall under this case should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the motive and purpose of receiving money and valuables, relationship with the other party, amount, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du27288, Sept. 13, 2013; 2016Du55247, Feb. 9, 2017). If it appears that the money and valuables are paid as a case for conducting external affairs, even if they include the nature that cannot be deemed as an honorarium, they cannot be deemed as an honorarium in substance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du3818, Jan. 15, 2015).

2) Determination

○ While the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of dismissal against a business office a, the Seoul High Court became final and conclusive (which seems to have been a de facto compromise) and received the instant compromise from a business office and gave up the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claims, and decided to settle all disputes surrounding the invalidity of dismissal. The settlement of this case seems to be a compromise between the Plaintiff and a business office based on the Plaintiff’s basic pay.

○ In this case, although the defendant does not clearly express what "management of affairs or provision of services, etc." is, it is thought that the plaintiff or a business office without raising any objection to the decision of recommending reconciliation, and received it, is not "management of affairs or provision of services, etc.". However, since the profit which can only be settled by the acceptance of the decision of recommending reconciliation is enjoyed by both a business office and the plaintiff, the honorarium that a business office pays to the plaintiff shall be the settlement amount in this case, and the case that a business office provides the plaintiff with a business office shall be the settlement amount in this case, and it shall not be the purport of asserting that the plaintiff yield part of the original claim amount without raising a demand to pay all of the initial claim amount. However, deeming the plaintiff's action or measure as "the act of providing business affairs or services, etc." is very natural defective.

○○ (a) the business office won the entire lawsuit in the first instance trial, and even if the Plaintiff submitted a new argument in the appellate trial, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion (see, e.g., the reference brief in April 5, 2018), it seems that the payment of honorariums for the entire winning a business office in the first instance trial to the appellate court is not a violation of the rule of experience.

○ Furthermore, in this case, the amount that a business office shall be paid to the Plaintiff is not payable.

The amount of KRW 752,262,00 is a large amount of KRW 752,262,00 (if the case is simply a simple honorarium, it seems that the amount would not be charged to the smaller unit of KRW 2,000). In the case of Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu69371, Jul. 20, 2016 (Seoul High Court Decision 2016Du48232, supra), the Defendant’s reference judgment cited as the grounds for its assertion, the agreed amount paid is only KRW 90,000,000,000,000, which was paid to the Defendant. If more than in relation to the above reference judgment presented by the Defendant, unlike the above reference judgment, the Defendant himself/herself is a case where the Plaintiff and a business office cannot contain a failure, and ② in the case of the above reference judgment, the instant Plaintiff’s ELV chemical, which was subject to disciplinary action, was prevented from speaking and behavior against incumbent workers, and should be paid to the Plaintiff or a business office to prevent the instant agreement.

The purpose of resolving a dispute is to set aside as soon as possible after a considerable period from the initial stage of the dispute, such as not being found in the record that there is a plaintiff's act, etc. which is necessary to take measures, but a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal was filed and the judgment of the first instance was rendered, and the judgment of the second instance was made before the judgment of the second instance. (3) In the case of the above reference judgment, the worker's annual salary seems to have been merely referenced by simple reference.

The above reference judgment is different from this case and it is not appropriate to be invoked in this case.

○ In the end, it is difficult to regard the settlement money of this case as money paid to the Plaintiff by the business office in the meaning of the case of handling affairs or providing services, and there is no argument by the Defendant as to the fact that the settlement money of this case constitutes income subject to taxation in a different form. Therefore, the Defendant does not have any title or ground to claim the withdrawal of the deposit money, and eventually, the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit money belongs to the Plaintiff.

○ Furthermore, Article 33 (Documents Attached to Request for Withdrawal of Deposited Articles) of the Deposit Rule provides that "a person who intends to deliver deposited goods shall attach the following documents to the request for withdrawal of deposited goods." In addition, Article 33 (Documents Attached to Request for Withdrawal of Deposited Articles) of the Deposit Rule provides that "a document evidencing that there has been a claim for withdrawal" as stated in subparagraph 2 of the Deposit Notice shall be attached to the request for withdrawal of deposited goods. In addition, the notice of request for withdrawal of deposited goods (securities) attached to the notice of this case also states that "6. In cases where deposit has been made against several deposited persons, it is possible to withdraw the deposited goods only if there is a document evidencing the authority to

However, despite the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant refused to submit a written consent for the withdrawal of the instant deposit, and argued that the right to claim the withdrawal of the instant deposit is the Defendant during the course of the instant lawsuit. Thus, the Defendant’s claim for the withdrawal of the instant deposit between the Defendant and the Defendant is the only and appropriate method for the withdrawal of the instant deposit, and thus, the benefit of confirmation is recognized.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted with due reason.