Whether the difference in the total diagnosis amount paid when changing the retirement allowance system from the progressive system to the single-use system is legitimate as a bonus disposition by deeming the difference in the number of diagnosis amount as a temporary payment irrelevant to duties.

The difference in the short-term diagnosis paid to workers who are not realistic retirees shall be equivalent to the temporary payment in charge of the affairs.

Article 44 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

2015Guhap104182. Revocation of notice of change in income amount

AAAAA Hospital

Daejeon director of the tax office

on 04 April 07, 2016

on October 16, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Disposition against the plaintiff 2,032,501,734 on November 27, 2013

The cancellation shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a hospital that provides a national university with clinical education, clinical research, and medical treatment to students in medicine, nursing, and pharmacy as a national university.

B. The plaintiff calculated the retirement allowance of his employee from August 1995 to five years before his retirement.

Monthly average wage 】 Number of years of service 】 (145 + number of years of service)/100;

Retirement pay calculated by multiplying the standard salary by the rate of payment increased by the number of years of service

The system was operated.

(c) The Planning and Budget Committee has passed on December 29, 1998 on the retirement benefits of public institutions compared to the private sector.

2/1 month per year in continuous service after abolition of the retirement allowance system of public institutions on the grounds of high level, etc.

Number of retirement allowances calculated on the basis of average wages (in addition to the number of years of continuous service)

The Ministry of Education decided to introduce a salary rate (no salary rate), and the Ministry of Education, including Plaintiff around August 5, 199.

The National University Hospital notified the management innovation promotion plan including the abolition of the retirement benefits system;

On October 5, 2000, the National University Hospital, including the Plaintiff, shall be encouraged to promote the abolition of the retirement benefits progressive system.

had been.

D. The plaintiff and the AAA Hospital Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the "Trade Union") around December 29, 2001

From December 1, 2001, the single retirement allowance system is implemented, but the plaintiff agreed on December 1, 2001 that the person in office as of December 1, 2001 shall be paid KRW 90,000 per month according to a separate agreement, and the plaintiff and the trade union reached an agreement with the following contents (hereinafter referred to as the "attached agreement of this case") around December 26, 2001.

E. The Board of Audit and Inspection has conducted an audit of the institution operation of the Plaintiff on or around September 2007, as a result of the audit of the Plaintiff’s institution operation.

12. 29. Deeming that the Ministry of Education abolished a short-term retirement allowance system and introduced a short-term retirement allowance system, however:

The office shall enter into an agreement with the trade union in the case, and shall substantially continue to operate the retirement allowance system.

The facts, etc. are discovered, and the head of AAAA Hospital around February 2008 is subject to the agreement of the case.

The measures to improve the reasonable retirement allowance system, such as abolition of the retirement allowance system in operation, are prepared (throughout).

B) The Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development and the Board of Directors should not report differently from the facts in the future, and the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development have made a request for a disposition of audit results which includes the contents of the report.

F. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s agreement on October 6, 2008 between the trade union and the trade union of this case is about December 2, 2008.

31. The Plaintiff agreed that the Plaintiff shall be paid retirement allowance of KRW 120,000 per month from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2008 to a worker who is eligible for the payment of retirement allowance under the Plaintiff’s Remuneration Regulations at the time of December 1, 2001.

G. On February 25, 2009, the Plaintiff had 379 workers of the Plaintiff, including Rahee, etc. (hereinafter “the instant workers”).

D) By December 31, 2008, an aggregate of KRW 10,271,278,550 (hereinafter referred to as “the short-term short-term short-term short-term short-term short-term short-term short-term short-term retirement benefits” calculated as a short-term short-term retirement benefits by applying the agreement of this case to the instant annexed sheet was paid to the Plaintiff.

H. On November 18, 2013, the Defendant paid the difference in the short-term diagnosis of the instant case to the Plaintiff without office in charge of business affairs.

on the one hand, the corporate tax is corrected on the other, and the person who is deemed to have the interest paid to the employee.

Pursuant to the General Rules of the Corporate Tax Act, which is disposed of as bonus, on November 27, 2013, the difference between the water leakage of this case

one recognized interest is disposed of as bonus and 2,032,501,734 (=64,134,636 won reverted to year 2009 +

Amount of 538,566,645 won for the year 2010 + Amount of 519,149,414 won for the year 201 + Amount of 2012

510,651,039 won was notified of the change in the amount of income (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case").

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 19, Eul evidence 1 to 3

the purpose of each entry, as a whole, of the entire pleadings, including branch numbers

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The short-term diagnosis difference in the instant case constitutes retirement income or other income for the following reasons:

Therefore, unlike this, it is based on the premise that the difference in the quantity of the diagnosis of this case falls under the amount of the provisional payment without office.

The disposition of this case is unlawful.

① The Plaintiff changed the retirement allowance payment system from the progressive system to the fractional system to the instant workers.

Pursuant to the choice of such person, the difference in the amount of the initial diagnosis of the retirement pay shall be paid first, and the remainder of the retirement pay shall be

The difference in the quantity of diagnosis in this case shall be paid at the time of retirement, and the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Article 42-2(1)5 A of the Act on February 15, 2013 (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24356, Feb. 15, 2013)

applicable to one retirement income.

② Even if the short-term diagnosis difference in the instant case does not constitute retirement income, it shall be considered as such.

Retirement allowances agreed upon by the Plaintiff to the instant workers at the time of employment contract or the instant agreement;

The injury suffered by workers due to the continued maintenance of a short-term system shall be compensated for;

As such, it is paid in accordance with Article 21 (1) 10 of the Income Tax Act, which is a penalty or compensation under other income.

2) The Board of Audit and Inspection that the Plaintiff, a non-profit institution, abolished the retirement benefits progressive and enforced a single system.

The consent of workers whose retirement amount is reduced in the course of implementing the direction shall be obtained.

For the purpose of this case, the difference between the plaintiff and the worker of this case has been paid, and both the plaintiff and the worker of this case have paid

However, the short-term diagnosis difference in this case was recognized as retirement allowance.

If a non-exemptd provisional payment is deemed to be a bonus and thus the authorized interest is disposed of as a bonus, the plaintiff shall be deemed to be the plaintiff.

Workers of this case and trade unions to obtain a license from the workers of this case, and enormous and unclaimed losses;

Since it is detrimental to the good faith principle, it is a harsh punishment against the good faith principle.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the difference in the short-term diagnosis of this case constitutes a business-related provisional payment

A) former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21032 of Feb. 4, 2009)

Article 44(1) and (2)(3) of the Act shall apply to retirement benefits that a corporation pays to its executives or employees.

If the member or employee actually retires, it shall be deemed as losses only if the member or employee actually retires.

Admission, but interim settlement of retirement benefits under Article 8 (2) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act;

Article 22(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 66 of Mar. 30, 2009) provides that “The retirement benefits paid to an officer or employee who has not actually retired shall be deemed as falling under the amount of temporary payment having no business relation until such employee actually retires.” Furthermore, Article 8(2) of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits (hereinafter “the grounds for interim settlement of retirement allowances”) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25022 of Dec. 24, 2013) provides that “The grounds for interim settlement of retirement allowances shall be as follows:

In full view of the facts as seen earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant worker did not actually retire at the time of paying the short-term diagnosis amount, and retirement allowances.

Even if there was no ground for interim settlement, the Plaintiff has a reason for interim settlement as a retirement allowance (low additional dues).

Since the short-term diagnosis difference in the instant case was paid, the short-term diagnosis difference in the instant case shall be paid by the competent office.

It is reasonable to view that the case falls.

B) Although the Plaintiff alleged that the short diagnosis difference in this case constitutes retirement income, the Plaintiff’s income tax is the former income tax.

Article 22 (1) 6 of the Act (amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 2013) and Article 42-2 (1) 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24356, Feb. 15, 2013) are "the amount of retirement benefits paid in compensation for losses caused by changes in the retirement allowance payment system when paying the adjusted amount of retirement benefits under Article 8 (2) of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits as the provisions on retirement benefits and the amendment of the employment rules are amended." The short diagnosis difference in this case is not money paid in paying the adjusted amount of retirement benefits under Article 8 (2) of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits, and it does not constitute retirement income.

C) The Plaintiff asserts that the short diagnosis difference in the instant case constitutes other income. We examine the case

Article 21 (1) 10 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9785 of Jul. 31, 2009) provides that "a penalty or compensation received due to a breach or cancellation of a contract" as one of other income, and Article 41 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034 of Feb. 18, 2010) provides that "the penalty or compensation for breach of a contract is the compensation received due to a breach or termination of a contract on the property right and refers to the value of money or other goods to compensate for the damages exceeding the damages per se to the payment itself which forms the original contents of the contract, regardless of its title. In such cases, if the value of money, etc. returned due to a breach or termination of a contract does not exceed the total amount paid initially under the contract, it shall not be deemed the value of money, etc. exceeding the damages per se to the payment itself."

However, in full view of the aforementioned evidence’s reasoning, the Plaintiff’s employee

amount of retirement benefits agreed upon by employment contract or by the agreement of this case to the public;

In order to pay the amount, the difference in the amount of the instant medical diagnosis is only paid, and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff

Damages exceeding the damages to the payment itself, which is the content of the contract between workers.

There is no ground to acknowledge that the short diagnosis difference in this case constitutes other income.

shall not be deemed to exist.

D) Therefore, the cost that the difference in the number of diagnosis in this case constitutes retirement income or other income

The intentional assertion is without merit.

2) Whether the instant disposition is against the principle of good faith

Generally, the principle of trust and good faith for tax authorities' actions in tax law relations

first, the tax authority’s expression of public opinion that is the subject of trust to taxpayers.

B. A taxpayer must express his/her opinion, and the taxpayer should not be responsible for the failure of the taxpayer to believe that the expression of opinion by the tax authority is justifiable, and the taxpayer must act in trust and what is the taxpayer's opinion. Fourth, the tax authority's disposition against the above expression of opinion should result in a violation of the taxpayer's interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du403, Sept. 5, 2003). Furthermore, the principle of trust and good faith and the principle of trust protection in tax law are exceptional legal principles applicable only to cases where there are special circumstances where the taxpayer's trust is deemed to conform to the justice, even if there are special circumstances where the taxpayer's trust is deemed to be consistent with the justice, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of trust protection to the acts of the tax authority, the trust granted by the tax authority through the public statement of opinion, etc. should be an average taxpayer have a reasonable and justifiable expectation (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du540, Dec. 26, 2013).

The tax authorities and the Board of Audit and Inspection, even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, raise this to the Plaintiff.

In addition, it is difficult to recognize that a public statement of opinion contrary to the disposition of the case was made; and

There is no evidence to acknowledge that a disposition violates the principle of good faith. Accordingly, the plaintiff

This part of the assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.