2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s refusal to rectify the global income tax for the year 2013, which was rendered to the Plaintiff on August 29, 2014, is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The meaning of the language used in this part is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff

Inasmuch as the instant agreement is a dispute settlement concerning an unfair dispute between AA andCC and it does not fall under any of the earned income, retirement income, and other income subject to income tax, it cannot be subject to income tax. However, the instant refusal disposition rejecting a claim for correction by AA, deeming the instant agreement as subject to income tax, is unlawful. Also, the instant refusal disposition is unlawful. Also, the instant refusal disposition’s notification is merely a mere refusal of the claim by AA as it is without merit, and its ground provision is not presented. Therefore, there is a grave defect in the process.

2) Defendant (Grounds for the refusal disposition of this case)

In addition to wages and retirement allowances until October 0, 000,CC has no obligation to pay to AA additional money, since AA concludes an application for unfair dismissal relief filed by it againstCC chemical by compromise, and pays AA the instant amount of agreement in return for performing administrative affairs conducted by taking procedures for withdrawal of lawsuit in the lawsuit related toCC chemistry, it is obvious that the instant amount of agreement was paid as the case’s example. Accordingly, the instant amount of agreement falls under “an honorarium, one of the other income under the Income Tax Act,” and thus, it is not reasonable to apply for correction by AAA.

B. Relevant provisions

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 7 to No. 8). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On October 00, 190, on the grounds of "private use of company costs, violation of the rules of integrity and ethics, etc.," the purpose ofCC was to punish AA to the effect that "in the event that AA does not resign from office until October 0, 000, it shall be subject to disciplinary dismissal" and "AA shall not resign." As such, AA was punished on October 0, 000, and until that time, AA paid 00,000 retirement allowances, retirement allowances of KRW 00,000 to AA.

2) On October 0, 200, AA filed a lawsuit claiming overseas travel expenses (Seoul Southern District Court 2013Dada15145) with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Southern District Court 2013) on the ground of the claim that "AAA was deemed to be unfair fromCC chemical and failed to have an overseas package tour provided to workers" on November 20, 2013.

3) On December 9, 2013, AA reached the instant reconciliation with theCC chemical, and around October 0, 2000, AA received KRW 0 million calculated by subtracting the withheld tax amount from the instant agreed amount from theCC chemical. On October 0, 200, Seoul Southern District Court (2013Gaso145) withdrawn the lawsuit.

4) In the inquiry reply to the fact-finding inquiry with respect to this Court, under mutual agreement in order to resolve all disputes with AA, the instant agreement was made, and the amount was determined through mutual consultation, not by specifying the specific name in calculating the amount, but by determining the amount at the annual salary level of AA. While referring to the annual salary of AA, the instant agreement is irrelevant to the benefits or retirement allowances of AA as purely agreed money, and the amount of the instant agreement was deemed as other income and paid KRW 20 million after withholding tax amount equivalent to 20%.

D. Determination

1) Whether the agreement amount in this case is a honorarium

A) 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 such money and valuables fall under the case should 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 Decision 2010Du27288, Sept. 13, 2013).

B) In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the health stand, and the entire purport of the arguments, it is reasonable to deem thatCC has paid the instant agreement to AA as the case concerning early resolution of all disputes among AA andCC chemicals without carrying out defamation action and speaking against incumbent and incumbent workers.

① To prevent defamation remarks and actions of the AA and resolve disputes with the AA promptly and smoothly, it appears that the CC would pay the instant agreement for the purpose of preventing defamation remarks and actions that were employed by its employees.

② The instant agreed amount does not include wages such as wages and retirement allowances, andCC identified the instant agreed amount as other income and paid AA KRW 90 million after withholding tax amount.

③ Even if it is difficult to readily conclude that AA was reinstated or won in the relevant civil procedure, it is difficult to conclude that AA was not a compromise in the instant case, it cannot be deemed that it was a person who was an unfair dismissal of AA due to such circumstance alone. Accordingly, it is difficult to accept the assertion of AA thatCC chemical paid AA with compensation for mental and status defamation.

④ Under the general rule of the Income Tax Act, Article 21-05(2) provides that "money and valuables received by a person who is not obligated to manage his/her business for another person and receive in return," subparagraph 2 provides "money and valuables received by an employee from his/her transaction line in connection with his/her duties, etc." under subparagraph 3, and Article 21-03(1) provides "amount paid in return for hearing his/her opinion by a broadcasting station, newspaper company, and telephone station, etc. to monitor employees who have been commissioned without considering their opinions about the quality of broadcasting programming or newspaper article, the degree of work attitude of employees, etc." (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du5611, Feb. 8, 2007).

⑤ On June 14, 1991, the AA asserted that the agreed amount in this case is not included in other income under the Income Tax Act on the ground of the Supreme Court Decision 90Da11813 Decided June 14, 1991. However, the above decision concerns the issue of whether the agreed amount received through a settlement in a lawsuit for the invalidation of dismissal constitutes "compensation or compensation received due to a breach or termination of a contract on earned income, retirement income, or property rights" and therefore it is not appropriate to be invoked in this case.

C) Therefore, the Defendant’s rejection disposition of this case, which rejected AA’s correction of global income tax, is lawful by deeming the instant agreed amount as an honorarium, which is other income under Article 21(1)17 of the Income Tax Act, and the assertion of AA under a different premise is without merit.

2) Whether the procedure is unlawful

A) Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that, when an administrative agency takes a disposition, the administrative agency shall present the basis and reasons therefor to the parties, and this purport is to exclude the arbitrary decision of the administrative agency and allow the parties to properly cope with the administrative remedy procedure. Therefore, in full view of the contents stated in the written disposition, relevant statutes, and the overall process up to the relevant disposition, in a case where it is sufficiently recognizable that the parties to the disposition were made at the time of the disposition, and where it is deemed that there was no particular hindrance to the party’s moving into the administrative remedy procedure, the disposition cannot be deemed unlawful due to such failure to specify the grounds and reasons for the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du20348, Dec. 10, 2009).

B) According to the purport of the whole statement and arguments as to this case, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence No. 9-1, 2, and Gap evidence No. 10, as to this case, AA filed a request for correction with the defendant on the ground that this case’s agreed amount constitutes a case under Article 45-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, since it was declared that it constitutes a subject of taxation under the Income Tax Act because it constitutes a dispute resolution amount and thus constitutes a case under Article 45-2(1)1 of the Income Tax Act. The defendant made a request for correction. In this case’s objection, the defendant notified that this case’s agreed amount is not subject to taxation under the Framework Act on National Taxes within 90 days from the date of receipt of the notice. AA filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a trial on the ground that this case’s agreed amount is not subject to taxation under the Income Tax Act. According to the above facts, it can be found that the defendant did not have any particular reason for objection to the above AA’s administrative remedy procedure.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, AA's claim shall be dismissed for lack of good cause, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, so the defendant's appeal shall be accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the claim of AA shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.