Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap6861 ( October 22, 2015)

The amount that a number of unspecified retirees received according to the individual agreement of specific employees, not the amount that they received according to the retirement allowance payment rules, constitutes earned income.

The retirement allowance, retirement allowance, and other benefits of a similar nature which are paid to an unspecified number of unspecified retirement workers cannot be considered as "retirement allowance, retirement allowance, and other benefits of a similar nature which are paid due to retirement, which are not included in retirement income, and should be considered as employment income.

Article 22 (Retirement Income)

2015Nu33716 global income and revocation of disposition

Yellow AA

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap66861 Decided January 22, 2015

August 19, 2015

September 2, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The part of the disposition of the Plaintiff, which was issued by the Defendant on July 1, 2013 (the Plaintiff stated on July 10, 2013 in the complaint's column of purport of claim and the column of purport of appeal in the petition of appeal, which is the date of disposition, is the date of July 10, 2013, but according to the evidence No. 1-1 through No. 4, " July 10, 2013" appears to be the clerical error of " July 10, 2013"), is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is that “ July 10, 2013,” which is the second 12th 12th 12th of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be read as “ July 1, 2013,” and the Plaintiff’s argument emphasized in the trial is the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment in the next paragraph, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Additional determination

The plaintiff asserts that the amount paid as retirement should be classified into retirement income regardless of whether it is forced or not. However, according to the above facts, the "OOOs received by the plaintiff from the literatureCC in 2009" cannot be viewed as "retirement allowance, retirement allowance, and other benefits of a similar nature" under Article 42-2 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the "former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act"), which are paid to a large number of non-specific retirees under Article 42-2 (1) 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. The "retirement allowance, retirement bonus, and other benefits of a similar nature" under Article 38 (1) 13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which are paid as retirement income and are not included

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.