Article 38 (Scope of Labor Incomes)

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

가. 원고는 1991. 11. 1. ○○○○○○○○○○○ 주식회사 ( 이하 '한국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ'라 한다)에 입사하여 직원으로 근무하였다. 원고는 한국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ 직원으로 근무하던 중 1994. 4. 13. 미국 소재 법인인 ○ ○○○○○○○○ 주식회사(이하 '미국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ'라 한다)로부터 주당행사가격 미화 0.75달러에 미국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ의 주식 32,000주를 매수할 수 있는 내용의 주식매수선택권(Stock Option, 이하 '스톡옵션'이라 한다)을 부여 받았다.

B. From June 16, 1997 to October 30, 1998, the Plaintiff acquired the profits from exercising Stockholm options [the profits equivalent to the difference (the amount converted at the base exchange rate) calculated by deducting the exercise price from the stock transaction price as of the date of the event (the market price)] as listed in the following table. hereinafter “the profits from exercising Stockholm options”

Number of shares (number of shares)

The value of the event ($)

Date of event

Market price ($)

Exercising interest (won)

3,200

0.75

June 16, 1997

4,410

10,537,286

3,200

0.75

December 16, 1997

4,400

20,295,168

3,200

0.75

December 23, 1997

4,730

21,463,981

3,200

0.75

. 15, 1998

6,130

23,897,530

3,200

0.75

October 30, 1998

7,280

27,480,330

C. The Plaintiff, by deeming that the instant Stockholm option exercise profit does not constitute taxable income, did not report and pay each global income tax base and tax amount accordingly to the Defendant.

D. The Defendant issued the instant disposition to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the instant Stockholm option exercise profit constituted Class B earned income, to rectify the amount of the Plaintiff’s income by adding it to the Plaintiff’s earned income amount. As of December 1, 2003, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing and notifying the Plaintiff of KRW 26,101,360 (including additional taxes), resident tax of KRW 2,610,130 (including additional taxes), resident tax of KRW 29,385,223 (including additional taxes) for global income tax of April 1, 2004, and KRW 29,385,223 (including additional taxes) for global income tax of KRW 198, and resident tax of KRW 2,938,522, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) The instant Stockholm option is an irregular and irregular payment, and cannot be deemed as an incentive provided for the continued employment of outstanding human resources, and cannot be deemed as a consideration for the provision of labor. The instant disposition that imposed the instant Stockholm option on the premise that there is no legal employment relationship between the U.S. system that granted the Stockholm option and the Plaintiff or an occupational direction system based on the employment relationship or its basis, even if the Stockholm option itself has the nature of wage and salary income, cannot be calculated as the market price at the time of the exercise, and that the amount of profits from exercising the Stockholm option cannot be assessed as the wage and salary income under Article 38(1)17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act as amended on December 30, 202, by stipulating the profits from exercising the Stockholm option as the wage and salary income and thus, it cannot be taxed as the wage and salary income under the premise that the profits from exercising the Stockholm option can not be taxed as the wage and salary income.

(2) Even if the disposition of imposition on the profits from the Stockholm option of this case is lawful, it is not clear whether the benefits from the Stockholm option are subject to taxation because of its ambiguous legal nature, and the defendant, the taxation authority, imposed this tax at the time when the limitation period of the right to impose the above gains from the exercise of the right is expired. If the tax authority exercised the right to impose taxes from the first taxable period, the plaintiff had paid the tax in advance in order to avoid the burden of additional tax, and the defendant had the burden of additional tax by imposing the tax late tax as above. In light of the above circumstances, there is a justifiable reason that the plaintiff failed to return and pay the labor income tax on the profits from the exercise of the Stockholm option of this case. Thus, the part imposing additional tax in the disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Income Tax Act

Article 20 (Earned Income) (1) Earned income shall be the following incomes earned in the corresponding year:

1. Class A:

(a) Salary, salary, remuneration, remuneration, annual allowance, wage, bonus, allowance, and other benefits of a similar nature, which are received due to the provision of labor;

2. Class B:

(b) Pay received from a foreigner or foreign corporation located abroad (excluding a domestic branch or domestic business office);

Article 24 (Calculation of Total Amount of Income)

(1) The total amount of income of a resident shall be calculated based on the total amount received or received in the relevant year.

(2) In cases under paragraph (1), if any income other than money is imported, such income shall be calculated according to the value at the time of transaction.

Article 39 (Accretion Year, etc. of Total Amount of Income and Necessary Expenses)

(1) The year to which the total income and necessary expenses of a resident are reverted shall be the year in which the total income and necessary expenses are determined.

Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17825, Dec. 30, 2002)

Article 38 (Scope of Earned Incomes) (1) The scope of the employment incomes as prescribed in Article 20 of the Act shall include the following incomes:

17. Profits (referring to the difference between the market price and the actual purchase price at the time of exercising the stock option, and the stock includes the preemptive right) accruing from exercising the stock option granted to an officer or employee of the relevant corporation or a corporation in a special relationship referred to in Article 87 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act with the relevant corporation (hereafter referred to as the “relevant corporation, etc.” in this subparagraph);

Article 49 (Receipt Date of Earned Income)

(1) The receipt date of the total amount of the earned income shall be as follows:

1. Salaries;

The Labor Day;

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) 1, if the relevant benefits are not determined before the beginning of the period for final return on the tax base of the relevant taxable period, it shall be deemed to have been imported on the fixed date: Provided, That the amount actually received before the date of final return on the tax base of the relevant

Addenda

Article 1 (Enforcement Date) This Decree shall enter into force on January 1, 2003: Provided, That the amended provisions of Articles 38(1), 62(2)2, 63, 64 (excluding subparagraph 5 of paragraph (1)), 143(3)1, 146-2, and 208-2(4) shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation.

Article 5 (Application to Scope of Earned Income) The amended provisions of Article 38 (1) shall apply to the portion of income generated in the taxable period to which the date of promulgation belongs.

The Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 5195, Dec. 30, 1996)

(1) The profits (referring to the difference between the actual purchaser price of the stocks and the market price, and the stock shall be deemed to include preemptive right) which an employee gains by obtaining and exercising the stock option meeting the requirements falling under each of the following subparagraphs from a domestic corporation as prescribed by the Presidential Decree as a founder or a new technology businessman and a listed corporation or off-the-board registered corporation (hereafter in this Article, referred to as a “business start-up corporation, etc.”) meeting the requirements as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, shall not be considered as an earned income, and the provisions of Article 20

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) 한국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ는 미국 시즈템즈가 100% 출자하여 설립한 회사로서 현재까지도 미국시스템즈가 주식 100%를 소유하고 있다. 한국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ는 직원을 채용함에 있어 모회사인 미국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ의 승인을 받고, 미국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ의 평가기준에 따라 직원의 근무상황이나 근무실적을 평가한 후 이를 미국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ에 보고하며, 직원의 승진이나 퇴직에 대하여 그 내용을 미국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ에 보고하여 승인을 받아야 한다.

(2) 원고는 1991. 11. 1.자로 한국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ에 입사하여 정규직 직원(F&A; Director)으로 근무하다가 2001, 12. 9. 정규직에서 퇴사한 후 비정규직 상태에서 2002. 7. 31.까지 근무하였다. 원고가 위와 같이 입사하여 근무하다가 퇴사함에 있어서도 다른 직원들과 마찬가지로 미국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ의 지휘 · 감독을 받았다.

(3) 한편 미국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ는 자체 내의 스톡옵션 프로그램에 의하여 대상자를 선별하여 스톡옵션을 부여하는데, 한국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ에서는 직원들이 위 프로그램에 따라 스톱옵션을 받을 수 있도록 협조하는 역할을 하여 왔다. 위 프로그램에 의하여 미국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ는 ① 우수인재의 채용(New Hire Stock Option),② 우수인재와 중요한 업무를 담당하는 직원에 대한 보상(Recognition Stock Option), ③ 승진자 또는 우수인재 유지를 위한 보상(Off-cycle Stock Option) 등에 해당되는 한국시스템즈 임 · 직원에게 스톡옵션을 부여하여 왔다. 임 · 직원은 휴직 또는 퇴직할 경우 스톡옵션 행사에 제한을 받게 되는데, 퇴직의 경우 90일 이내에 스톡옵션을 행사하여야 하고, 위 기간이 경과할 경우 스톡옵션의 무효로 된다.

(4) 미국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ는 1994. 4. 13. 원고에게 비적격 스톡옵션(N0n-qualified Stock Option, 미국에서는 스톡옵션을 적격스톡옵션과 비적격 스톡옵션으로 구분하는데, 그중 비적격 스톡옵션은 감세의 혜택을 받을 수 없다는 점에서 적격 스톡옵션과 구별된다)을 부여하였는데, 그 행사기간은 1995. 4. 13.일 이후로서 2002. 4. 20.까지로 되어 있다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 2 and 7; the court of the first instance, ○○○○○○○○○ corporation in the first instance, the fact-finding results; the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Definitions of earned income and Stockholm options

(A) Ordinary earned income refers to wages provided by an employer according to an employer’s command and order based on causes similar to an employment contract, such as an employment contract or delegation contract, and received from an employer as a consideration. However, Article 20(1)1(a) of the Income Tax Act comprehensively provides that “the amount of wage, salary, remuneration, tax, wage, bonus, bonus, allowance, and other benefits of a similar nature that are received from the provision of labor” in relation to the scope of earned income subject to income subject to income tax, excluding retirement income, in principle, includes all monetary benefits derived from a labor relationship or employment relationship or benefits of economic value derived from an employment relationship, and does not necessarily regard only the incomes listed in

Furthermore, "in the course of providing labor" under the above legal provision means that the provision of labor and the payment of wages are dealt with a quid pro quo relationship or a pair of benefits relationship. The above earned income includes not only all economic benefits which are related to the provision of labor and a quid pro quo relationship by nature, regardless of the cycle of the payment of salary, etc. (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2001HunBa74, Sept. 19, 2002) but also benefits which are closely related to the provision of labor and are regularly paid on the premise of labor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2003Du4089, Apr. 15, 2005).

(B) As a right to provide a company with services to its executives and employees up to now, as a compensation for future services, the Stockholm is a right to purchase a certain amount of its own shares at a certain exercise price within a certain period of time as agreed in advance, and is adopted as a means of strengthening the competitiveness of the company and payment of remuneration to its executives and employees. In other words, when the market price of the shares exceeds the exercise price of the Stockholm options, the officers and employees granted the Stockholm options will gain economic benefits equivalent to the difference between the market price of the shares and the exercise price of the Stockholm options. In Korea, Article 340-2(1) of the Commercial Act provides that the company may, by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders pursuant to Article 434 of the Commercial Act, acquire new shares at a predetermined price or grant rights to purchase shares to its directors, auditors or employees, who have contributed or may contribute to the establishment, management, technological innovation, etc. of the company as stipulated in the articles of incorporation.

(2) Whether the profits from the Stockholm options constitute earned income

(A) In order to recognize that an employee has a quid pro quo relationship with an employee’s work provided by the employee, any economic profit that the employee received from the employee is not required to have a close proportion between the employee’s work quality and quantity, but to have a quid pro quo relationship based on a specific correlation or an economic rationality with the work provided by the employee.

(B) The purpose of granting Stockholm options is to fundamentally make contributions to the company of officers and employees, and to seek a motive for continuing to work in the future. In other words, to achieve this objective, a certain limitation is placed on the exercise of Stockholm options prior to the grant of such options. In other words, for a certain period of time, work must be performed by the company in order to exercise Stockholm options, and when the employment contract is terminated, the continued work is subject to the exercise of Stockholm options, such as the termination of Stockholm options or the limitation on the exercise period. However, the fundamental reason behind the Stockholm options system is maintaining is that the market price of the company’s shares is formed by various factors, but the company’s performance is one of the important factors forming the share price, and such company’s performance is related to the work provided by its officers and employees, and thus, it is believed that the continuous work performance of officers and employees with capacity is related to the improvement of performance results and the increase in the share price.

In light of the above purpose of the Stockholm option system, the method of its exercise, etc., the Stockholm is naturally planned to ensure and maintain human resources necessary for the Stockholm option granting company by lowering the economic benefits of its officers and employees with the market value. On the other hand, the executive officers and employees granted the Stockholm options make efforts to increase the share price through improving the performance of the company granting the Stockholm options, and the executive officers and employees are able to acquire the benefits of its exercise by exercising the Stockholm options when the share price increases with their efforts. In addition, in granting the Stockholm options to the executive officers and employees, the fact that the executive officers and employees are able to acquire the benefits of the Stockholm options using the Stockholm options in such a way as well as the essential elements inherent in the Stockholm options system. As such, from the standpoint of the executive officers and employees, it can be deemed that the executive officers and employees are granted the options options and provide labor to the Stockholm options granting company with the options options by expectationing such benefits of exercising the Stockholm options.

(C) On the other hand, the existence and amount of profit from the Stockholm option exercise is affected by the determination of the price change after the Stockholm option was granted and the time when the person to be given the Stockholm option was exercised, and it is difficult to view that there was a correlation between the quality and quantity of the work provided by the employee and the quality of the work provided by the employee.

However, in a case where a worker uses Stockholm option once, the company has a duty to deliver the shares as the price determined in advance, and thus, an employee grants an employee economic benefit equivalent to the difference between the market price determined at the time of the exercise and the exercise price, and an employee gains the benefit of acquiring shares at a price lower than the market price as a result thereof. This can be said to be the result of a prior agreement between the company and the employee to the effect that the company transfers the employee the economic benefit equivalent to the difference between the market price and the exercise price at the time of the exercise of the right. In other words, an employee acquires the economic benefit equivalent to the Stockholm option’s exercise price at the time of the exercise of the right, while an employee acquires the economic sacrifice equivalent to the Stockholm option’s exercise price, the company granting the Stockholm option can be deemed to have paid the economic sacrifice equivalent to the Stockholm option’s exercise profit. However, such an employee’s economic benefit and the economic sacrifice of the company granting the Stockholm option can be deemed to have a quid

(D) Ultimately, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the objective of the Stockholm option system to secure and maintain able executives and employees, and to promote the future provision of high-quality labor; (b) an indivisible relationship with the Stockholm options that can exercise Stockholm options only on the premise of the provision of labor for a certain period; (c) the generation of profits from the exercise of Stockholm options is an essential element of the Stockholm options system; and (d) the relationship between the provision of labor and the stock price of the executives and employees cannot be denied; and (d) the benefits from the exercise of Stockholm options is unreasonable on the ground that the said benefits do not constitute earned income on the ground that there is no critical correlation between the quality of labor provided by the executives and employees and the economic interests of which the quantity is paid (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du1203, Oct. 13, 2006).

(3) Subject matter of taxation of the instant taxation disposition

(A) There may be controversy over the taxable object and the time of taxation when the Stockholm option was granted. In other words, the defendant, although the defendant viewed the taxable object of the instant taxation as the profits from the exercise of the Stockholm option, as the Stockholm option itself has already become final and conclusive, although it is possible to evaluate the specific contents of the assessment, so the subject of taxation is the Stockholm option itself, and the time of taxation should be deemed as the time of granting the Stockholm option, and the benefits from the exercise of the Stockholm option should be deemed as the profits from the operation of the Stockholm option, we examine this issue.

(B) First, there is room to view that Stockholm option itself holds a certain economic value as the right to expect or form a future market. However, in order for an economic benefit to constitute an earned income under Article 20(1) of the Income Tax Act, the economic benefit should be recognized as an income under the Income Tax Act, i.e., an increase of the tax-bearing capacity. Stockholm option itself is not the right to demand delivery of stocks, but is the right to make a contract for stock transfer, and is merely the right to make a contract for stock transfer, and it is not possible to realize as it is prohibited. Accordingly, it is difficult to regard the Stockholm option itself as an economic benefit equivalent to the difference between the price of the exercise at the time of the exercise and the exercise price, and thus, it cannot be deemed as an economic benefit that increases the tax-bearing capacity. On the other hand, as seen earlier, the economic benefit from the exercise of the Stockholm option itself cannot be deemed as an increase in the price of the exercise option itself, and thus, it cannot be deemed as an increase in the price of the option itself.

(C) Meanwhile, Article 39(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that "the year to which the total income amount and necessary expenses of a resident accrue shall be the year in which the date when the necessary expenses are determined, shall be the year to which the total income amount and the necessary expenses are determined," and in order to view that the income was determined in the year to which the income accrued pursuant to the above provision, it is not necessary to realize the income in a specific case by considering the management of income, the degree of objectiveization of income generated and income generated, and the time when the taxpayer is secured, and it is adequate to realize or realize the income at the time of exercising the Stockholm option as soon as possible (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8180, Jun. 22, 1993). Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the profit acquired at the time of exercising the Stockholm option is more than the market price and the profit has not yet been cashed and there is a change in the scale of final profit depending on the future disposal price, but as long as it is possible to dispose of stocks acquired at will be freely held at the time of the Stockholm option.

(D) Thus, the Stockholm option exercise profit is deemed to constitute earned income in the taxable period to which the time of its exercise belongs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du11203, Oct. 13, 2006). Accordingly, the instant taxation disposition that takes the taxable object as the Stockholm option exercise profit is lawful.

(4) The employer under the employment contract and the Stockholm options are different.

(A) As seen earlier, Article 20(1)1 (a) of the Income Tax Act only provides that “the salary, salary, etc., and other similar salaries that the employer and the payer receive through the provision of labor” as to wage and salary income does not require the same person between the employer and the payer as a premise for constituting wage and salary income. Furthermore, the Income Tax Act classifys income into interest income, dividend income, real estate rental income, business income, wage and salary income, temporary property income, other income, retirement income, capital gains, and forestry income. Such classification is intended to consider the difference of each taxable capacity in calculating the amount of income and applying the tax rate by classifying each income according to its source and nature. However, in light of the fact that the recipient of wage and salary income cannot be deemed to have a difference between the nature of income and the taxable capacity, it is difficult to view that there is a reasonable reason to request that the employer and the payer of wage be consistent with the wage and salary income. Therefore, the circumstance that the employer does not coincide with the wage and salary income constitutes an employer’s actual wage payment under the name or the same type.

(나) 이 사건에 돌아와 살피건대, 미국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ는 원고가 근무하던 한국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ 주식의 100%를 가진 모회사로서 한국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ의 근로자에 대한 채용, 평가, 승진 등 인사권을 행사하고 있으며 원고에 대한 스톡옵션 계약의 일방 당사자임은 앞서 본 바와 같다. 미국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ가 자회사의 근로자인 원고에게 스톡옵션을 부여한 이유는, 한국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ의 주식이 모회사인 미국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ 자산의 일부를 형성하고 있어 한국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ 근로자의 노력에 의해 자회사의 실적이 향상될 경우 미국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ의 자산가치를 증가시켜 모회사의 이익을 증가시킬 수 있다는 점을 고려한 것인데, 이는 자사주에 대한 스톡옵션을 자기 회사 근로자에게 부여하는 경우와 다를 것이 없이 우수한 인재를 확보하고 장래 양질의 근무를 제공받고자 하는 스톡옵션 제도의 본래 취지에 부합하는 것이다. 더욱이 미국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ가 한국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ 근로자에 대하여 포괄적인 인사권을 행사한다는 점을 보태어 본다면, 미국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ는 원고에 대하여 사용자에 준하는 지위를 갖고 있다고 볼 수 있다.

따라서 이러한 사정을 고려하면, 미국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ가 한국 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ 근로자인 원고에게 부여한 이 사건 스톡옵션은 '고용계약 또는 이와 유사한 원인'에 기초하여 제공된 원고의 비독립적 노무에 대한 대가로서 지급된 급여라고 봄이 상당하고, 이 사건에 있어서 사용자와 스톡옵션 부여자가 다른 사정은 이 사건 스톡옵션이 근로소득에 해당한다는 점에 아무런 영향을 미치지 못한다고 할 것이다.

(5) Whether legal grounds for the instant taxation disposition exist

(A) Article 38(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17825, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Decree”), which was enforced in 197 and 198, around the time the Plaintiff exercised the Stockholm option, provides that “The amended provisions of Article 38(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17825, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Decree”) provide that “The amended provisions of Article 38(1) of the Addenda of the amended Enforcement Decree shall apply from the income derived from the taxable period in which the date of its promulgation falls.” Thus, there is a problem as to whether there is a legal basis for

(B) In full view of the provisions of Articles 20 and 38(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17825, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”), the scope of earned income subject to income tax is, in principle, determined pursuant to Article 20 of the Income Tax Act, and the scope of earned income under Article 38(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is defined as “the scope of earned income subject to income under Article 20 of the Income Tax Act shall include the income falling under any of the following subparagraphs” as it is interpreted as being generally listed in the principle that it should include the earned income. Thus, the provisions of Article 38(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act prior to the amendment cannot be deemed as a provision that only list the types

Therefore, income not included in Article 38 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is subject to taxation as earned income if it is income under Article 20 (1) of the Income Tax Act, and the exercising profit of Stockholm constitutes earned income as mentioned above [In addition, prior to the enactment of Article 38 (1) 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act of December 30, 2002, Article 13-2 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption (amended by Act No. 5195 of December 30, 196) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption (amended by Act No. 5195 of December 30, 196) which was enforced before the enactment of Article 38 (1) 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 13-2 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 5195 of December 30, 196) has already been granted stock option (Stockholm option) and its employee's profit

(C) Furthermore, considering that the Income Tax Act comprehensively provides for earned income, Article 5 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the same Act does not stipulate that earned income shall not be taxed as earned income for exercising Stockholm options prior to the amendment of the same Enforcement Decree, but it shall be interpreted that after the amendment of the above Enforcement Decree, it may be taxed by applying Article 38(1)17 of the same Enforcement Decree to the profits accruing from exercising Stockholm options in the taxable period including the date of promulgation of the above Enforcement Decree. Accordingly, the instant taxation disposition is a legitimate disposition based on Article 20(1) of the Income Tax Act, regardless of whether Article 5 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is applied or not.

(6) Whether the imposition of additional tax in this case is lawful

Under the tax law, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, a taxpayer’s intention or negligence is not considered, but does not constitute justifiable grounds that do not constitute a breach of duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du4689, Nov. 13, 2002).

In the instant case, as seen earlier, so long as the Stockholm option exercise profit of this case constitutes income subject to taxation, even if the Plaintiff erred by misapprehending that the benefits from the Stockholm option exercise do not constitute income subject to taxation, this is merely a mere mistake in the land or misunderstanding of statutes, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff has justifiable grounds for neglecting the obligation to pay. Therefore, the disposition imposing the additional tax of this case is lawful.

(7) Sub-committee

Ultimately, since the parent company's benefits derived from the employee's exercise of the Stockholm option granted to the employee of the subsidiary company are included in the earned income under the Income Tax Act, the pertinent taxation disposition imposed on the plaintiff to this purport is legitimate, and all of the plaintiff's arguments against this are without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case shall be dismissed without merit on the premise that the disposition of this case is unlawful, and the judgment of the court of first instance with this conclusion is just and there is no ground for appeal by the plaintiff, and it is so dismissed as per Disposition.