이사장으로서의 지위를 물려준 데 대한 대가로 지급받은 금원은 사례금으로 봄이 타당함[국승]
Changwon District Court 2012Guhap2274, 2013.06
Appellate Decision 201J 1215 (Law No. 125, 2012)
It is reasonable to see that the amount received in return for taking the position as the chief director is an honorarium.
In relation to the transfer of the Foundation of this case, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff agreed to repay the non-approval debt, or that the Plaintiff used the oowon among the oowons actually received from the GangwonCC in paying the non-approval debt, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the non-approval debt should be excluded from the honorarium is without merit.
Article 21 of the Income Tax Act
(original)2013Nu1266 global income and revocation of disposition;
IsaA
Head of Changwon Tax Office
Changwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap2274 Decided June 18, 2013
May 22, 2014
June 19, 2014
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The decision of the court of first instance is revoked. The disposition of imposition of the global income tax OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO on August 1, 2010 (the Director and the Statement of Appeal No. 25, August 25, 2010 appears to be clerical error) that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on December 20, 2010 (the Director and the Statement of Appeal No. 2010, December 22, 2010 appears to be clerical error) that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on December 20, 205, shall be revoked in all of the dispositions of imposition of the global income tax OOOOOO, the global income tax OOOOOOOOOOO for the year 2006, and the global income tax OOOO
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
"The court's explanation of this case is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of "the additional determination of the court of second instance" to the following Paragraph 2, and therefore it is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
"(a) No. 6 to 11 of the 6th judgment of the first instance court (including each number), "No. 6 to 12-2 of the 6th judgment of the first instance court, Gap evidence No. 16-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence No. 17-1, 2, 3, and Gap evidence No. 20 through No. 31-2 of the 6th judgment of the first instance court," "B of the 7th judgment of the first instance court, "No. 10th witness KimB of the 10th judgment of the first instance court", and 3. Additional judgment of the second instance court.
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion stated that “The revenue prior to November 30, 2007 (request, hospitalization, outstanding amount, etc.) shall be settled by the Plaintiff, and all incomes such as claims, loan, cash, hospitalization, etc. from December 1, 2007 shall be settled and organized by the GangwonCC.” As such, the Plaintiff agreed with the GangwonCC to repay the obligations of the Foundation incurred until November 30, 2007. The Plaintiff actually received OOOOOOOs from the GangwonCC, which was used to repay the obligations of the Foundation until November 30, 2007, and the Plaintiff did not constitute an honorarium for the transfer of the Foundation,” and the Plaintiff’s allegation that “OOOs portion was insufficient to acknowledge the obligations of the Foundation,” or that there was no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s reimbursement of obligations between the Plaintiff and the OOOOs, 18, 12, and 4, respectively.
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.