Cho High-2017-Tgu Office-39 (Law No. 10, 2017)

Any person who has received a settlement recommendation from the company pursuant to the decision of recommending the settlement of unfair dismissal shall constitute earned income.

The Reconciliation Recommendation Board received from the company according to the decision of recommending reconciliation falls under the earned income received from the provision of labor as a worker of the company and compensation relationship.

Article 20 of the Income Tax Act

2017Guhap20585 Disposition of Refusal, etc. for Correction

Park ○ and 9 others

○ Head of tax office and six others

October 25, 2017

November 15, 2017

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims to revoke the correction refusal disposition among the lawsuits in this case are dismissed.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

Attached 1. The "Disposition Office" of the List is revoked both the disposition rejecting correction and the disposition imposing global income tax as stated in the "Disposition rejecting" column of the same Table against the plaintiffs as stated in the "Plaintiff" column of the same Table, and the disposition imposing global income tax is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Status of the parties

원고들은 주식회사 ○○(그 상호가 '주식회사 ○○주택'에서 '주식회사 ○○', '주식회사 △△○○'으로 변경되었다가 2010. 12. 28. '주식회사 ○○'으로 변경되었고, 2011. 6. 28. 주식회사 ▲▲에 흡수합병되면서 현재와 같이 '주식회사 ○○'으로 되었다. 이하 '소외 회사'라 한다)의 근로자로 재직하던 중, 2011. 1. 12.경 그 근로관계가 종료되었다.

B. Lawsuit between the plaintiffs and the non-party company

1) The Plaintiffs asserted that the termination of the above employment relationship constitutes unfair dismissal and thus null and void, and filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal and payment of wages during the period of dismissal against the non-party company as indicated below (hereinafter referred to as “prior action”).

2) During each lawsuit, the above court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the purport that the non-party company pays each of the amounts stated in the "Recommendation Amount of Compromise" of the above Table to the plaintiffs, and the decision of recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive as it is without any objection by the parties (hereinafter referred to as the "decision of recommending reconciliation in this case").

C. Withholding income tax of the non-party company and reporting and paying global income tax in 2015 by the plaintiffs

In accordance with the decision on the recommendation for reconciliation of this case, the non-party company withheld the global income tax in 2015 and paid it to the defendants, and the plaintiffs filed a comprehensive income tax return in 2015 on the premise that the above recommendation amount constitutes "other income under the Income Tax Act".

D. Plaintiffs’ claim for correction and Defendants’ disposition

1) Since then, the plaintiffs filed a request for correction to correct the global income tax amount for the year 2015 and return the refund money, as stated in the column of the "request for correction" in the attached Form 2. The amount received from the non-party company in accordance with the decision of recommendation for reconciliation in this case is not the "other income under the Income Tax Act, as the dispute settlement amount received in lieu of the waiver of the lawsuit seeking nullification of dismissal.

2) 이에 대하여 이 사건 처분내역표의 '처분'란 기재와 같이, ① 피고 ▲▲세무서장을 제외한 나머지 피고들은 원고 박△△을 제외한 나머지 원고들에 대하여, 위 화해권고금액이 소득세법상 '기타소득'이 아닌 '근로소득'에 해당한다고 보아, 이를 나머지 원고들의 각 해고기간에 상응하는 귀속연도(2011년~2015년)별로 안분한 다음, 2011년~2014년에 안분된 근로소득을 근거로 2011년~2014년 귀속 종합소득세를 각 결정・고지하고, 2015년에 안분된 근로소득을 근거로 2015년 귀속 종합소득세를 경정하고 기납부세액 공제 후 잔액을 환급하는 내용의 통지를 하였고, ② 피고 ▲▲세무서장은 '원천징수의무자가 신고・납부한 세금의 환급청구권은 원천징수의무자인 회사에 있다'는 이유로 2016. 9. 7. 원고 박△△의 경정청구를 단순 거부하였다가, 이 사건 소송계속 중에 나머지 피고들과 마찬가지로, 위 화해권고금액을 근로소득으로 보아 이를 원고 박△△의 해고기간에 상응하는 귀속연도(2011년~2015년)별로 안분한 다음, 2011년~2014년에 안분된 근로소득을 근거로 2011년~2014년 귀속 종합소득세를 각 결정・고지하고, 2015년에 안분된 근로소득을 근거로 2015년 귀속 종합소득세의 소득세액을 0원으로 경정하면서 미납세액 2,018,837원의 납부를 고지하였다(원고들의 경정청구 및 피고들의 처분 내용이 복잡하므로, 아래 3.항에서 상세히 살펴본다).

(e) Procedures of the previous trial;

원고들은 2016. 11. 25. 피고들의 위 처분(그 중 원고 박△△은 피고 ▲▲세무서장의 2016. 9. 7.자 경정거부처분)에 대하여 조세심판원에 심판청구를 하였으나, '위 화해

On February 10, 2017, a request for a trial was dismissed on the grounds that the recommended amount constitutes earned income.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 8 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's 1 to 19, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Defendants deemed the amount of reconciliation recommendation to be an earned income under the Income Tax Act and refused to file a claim for correction by the Plaintiffs, and imposed global income tax in 2011 to 2015. However, the amount of reconciliation recommendation is not subject to taxation because it does not fall under "other income or labor income under the Income Tax Act, as the dispute resolution amount received in lieu of waiver of the claims by the Plaintiffs against the non-party company in a lawsuit seeking nullification of the dismissal that was filed against the non-party company. Therefore, the Defendants’ disposition of refusal to rectify and taxation,

3. Liquidation of the defendants' disposition

A. Relevant legal principles

1) In the case of a tax item with a certain period of taxation, such as income tax and value-added tax, a tax assessment different in the period of taxation should be deemed separate and independent from each other (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu12057, Feb. 23, 1996). Therefore, in a case where a tax authority imposed a tax imposition on a request for correction of a global income tax in a single taxable period, for which the total income tax in the pertinent taxable period was partially reduced or corrected, and at the same time the tax authority imposed a new global income tax on the different taxable periods, there exists separate disposition of refusal to partially

2) The tax authority upon receipt of a request for reduction or correction is obligated to investigate and confirm whether the tax base and tax amount recorded in the tax base return exceed objectively legitimate tax base and tax amount to be reported under tax-related Acts. Thus, as in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition, a lawsuit seeking revocation of a rejection disposition against a request for reduction or correction is also the substantive and procedural grounds for revocation of such rejection disposition. The subject of the trial is the objective existence of the tax base and tax amount recorded in the tax base return (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du9261, Aug. 16, 2004). In order to support the legitimacy of the disposition imposing global income tax, the tax authority’s assertion of only the source of income within the scope of global income subject to comprehensive taxation is permitted as changes within the scope of the disposition maintaining the identity of the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du2181, Mar. 12, 2002). Therefore, the amount acquired by a taxpayer does not constitute "other income under the Income Tax Act."

3) In a case where the payment notice of income tax states that the already paid tax amount shall be deducted from the final tax amount, and the difference is notified, such disposition shall be deemed a disposition upon which the total amount of the determined tax amount is determined, and the remaining tax amount shall not be deemed a disposition upon which only the remaining tax amount is imposed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da44526, Dec. 10, 1999; 83Nu230, Nov. 26, 1985).

B. The plaintiffs' request for correction and the defendants' disposition

On this premise, the plaintiffs' claim for correction and the disposition of the defendants are arranged, the same as the statement of the disposition of this case. In the following, the specific examination of each plaintiff (hereinafter the notified tax amount of the defendants shall be calculated as burners less than ten won).

1) Plaintiff Park ○-○

A) On July 26, 2016, Plaintiff ○○○○ Office claimed that the global income tax amount attributed to the year 2015 was zero won to the head of the relevant tax office, and filed a claim for correction seeking the refund of KRW 9,640,380 of the global income tax attributed to the year 2015.

B) The head of ○○○○ Tax Office: (a) deemed that the amount of KRW 58,00,000 received by the Plaintiff Park○○○ constitutes earned income; (b) divided the said amount by the year from 2011 to 2015; (c) adjusted the total income amount of KRW 35,412 from KRW 9,640,380 to KRW 355,412; and (d) notified the amount of KRW 9,284,960 on September 14, 2016 (i.e., paid tax amount of KRW 9,640,380 to KRW 35,412 to KRW 35,412; and (b) notified the amount of income tax to be paid in 2017 to KRW 176,440 to KRW 2014; and (c) notified the amount of income tax to be paid in 2012 to KRW 35,4127; and (d) one to be paid in 2013947,2019.

C) On September 14, 2016, the disposition of the head of ○○ Tax Office on the global income tax for the year 2015 by Defendant ○○○ Tax Office rendered on September 14, 2016, the amount of reconciliation recommendation does not constitute “other income under the Income Tax Act” and the amount of global income tax is deemed as constituting “ earned income” under the Income Tax Act, and the amount of reconciliation recommendation is reduced from KRW 9,640,380 to KRW 35,412. As such, the amount of global income tax was reduced from KRW 355,412 to KRW 355,412, and the disposition of imposing global income tax for the imposition of global income tax for the year 2015.

D) In addition, the disposition of October 1, 2016 on global income tax for the period from 2011 to 2014 by the head of the ○○ Tax Office has the nature of imposing a new global income tax for each taxable period.

E) Therefore, the disposition by the head of the Defendant ○○○ Tax Office against Plaintiff ○○○ is as listed below: ① a disposition rejecting partial correction as of September 14, 2016 on global income tax for the year 2015; ② a disposition imposing as of September 14, 2016 on global income tax for the year 2015; and ③ a disposition imposing as of October 1, 2016 on global income tax for the year 201 to 2014; and

2) Plaintiff EA

A) On July 12, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the global income tax amount belonging to the year 2015 is zero won against Defendant ○○ Head of the competent tax office, and filed a claim for correction seeking the refund of KRW 21,000,000 of the global income tax corresponding to the year 2015.

B) The head of ○○○ Tax Office: (a) deemed that the amount of KRW 105,00,000 received by the Plaintiff A constitutes earned income, and divided the said amount by the year from 201 to 2015; (b) adjusted the total income tax of KRW 1,223,205 from KRW 24,709,619 to KRW 1,223,205; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of the amount of KRW 21,76,795 on September 21, 2016 (i) (i.e., paid tax amount of KRW 21,00,223,205) to KRW 1,205; (b) determined the comprehensive income tax of KRW 289,750 for the year from 201 to 2014 for the year from 2014; and (c) notified the amount of income tax of KRW 201,314 for the year from 2014 to 2014 for the first 2014.

C) On September 21, 2016, Defendant ○○ Tax Office’s disposition on September 21, 2016, on global income tax for the tax year 2015, the amount of settlement recommendation by Plaintiff A does not constitute “other income under the Income Tax Act” and the amount of global income tax is deemed as constituting “ earned income” under the Income Tax Act, and thus, the amount of settlement recommendation is reduced to KRW 1,223,205 from KRW 24,709,619 to KRW 1,223,205. As such, the amount of global income tax was reduced to KRW 1,223,205 to KRW 1,223,205, and imposition of global income tax for the tax year 2015.

D) In addition, the disposition of October 1, 2016 on global income tax for the period from 2011 to 2014 by the head of the ○○ Tax Office has the nature of imposing a new global income tax for each taxable period.

E) Accordingly, Defendant ○○○○○○ Tax Office’s disposition against Plaintiff A is as listed below: (i) a refusal of partial correction as of September 21, 2016 on global income tax for the year 2015; (ii) a disposition of September 21, 2016 on global income tax for the year 2015; and (iii) a disposition of imposition as of October 1, 2016 on global income tax for the year 201 to 2014; and (iv) a disposition of imposition as of global income tax for the year 201 to 2014.

3) Plaintiff BB

A) On July 12, 2016, Plaintiff B claimed that the global income tax amount for the year 2015 to Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office was zero won, and filed a claim for correction seeking the refund of KRW 16,000,000 of the global income tax for the year 2015.

B) The head of ○○○○ Tax Office: (a) deemed the amount of 80,00,000 won for settlement recommendation received by the Plaintiff BB to constitute this wage and salary income; (b) determined the amount of 17,245,143 won for each year from 201 to 2015; (c) adjusted the amount of 1,568,220 won for each year from 17,243 to 1,58,220 won; and (d) notified the amount of 16,676,920 won for September 13, 2016 (i.e., the amount of 16,00,245,140 won for each paid tax + KRW 1,568,220 for each paid tax amount - the amount of 200 won for each year from 2016 to 209, 209, 309, 297, 209, 2097, 397, 19.

C) On September 13, 2016, Defendant ○○ Tax Office’s disposition of September 13, 2016 on global income tax for the tax year 2015, the amount of reconciliation recommendation by Plaintiff B does not constitute “other income under the Income Tax Act” and the amount of global income tax is deemed as constituting “ earned income” under the Income Tax Act and the amount of reconciliation recommendation is reduced to KRW 1,568,220 from KRW 17,245,143 to KRW 1,568,220. As such, the amount of global income tax was reduced to KRW 1,568,220, and the imposition of global income tax for the tax year 2015 as “income income.”

D) In addition, the disposition of October 1, 2016 on global income tax for the period from 2011 to 2014 by the head of the ○○ Tax Office has the nature of imposing a new global income tax for each taxable period.

E) Accordingly, the disposition by the head of the ○○○○○ Tax Office against Plaintiff B is as listed below: (i) a refusal of partial correction as of September 13, 2016 on the global income tax for the year 2015; (ii) a disposition of September 13, 2016 on the global income tax for the year 2015; and (iii) a disposition of September 13, 2016 on the global income tax for the year 201 to 2014; and (iv) a disposition of imposition of each tax amount on the global income tax for the year 201 to 2014.

4) Plaintiff KimCC

A) On July 12, 2016, Plaintiff KimCC asserted that the global income tax amount for the year 2015 to Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office was zero won, and filed a claim for correction seeking refund of KRW 13,985,740 of the global income tax for the year 2015.

B) The head of ○○○○ Tax Office: (a) deemed that the amount of settlement recommendation received by the Plaintiff KimCC constituted KRW 76,00,000,00; (b) determined that the amount of comprehensive income tax for the year 2015 was adjusted from KRW 13,985,740 to KRW 85,692; and (c) notified the refund of KRW 13,90,048 on September 13, 2016 (i) KRW 13,985,740 to KRW 85,692 to KRW 85,692 to KRW 106,560 to KRW 298,067 to KRW 106,567 to KRW 106,560 to KRW 106,560; and (d) notified that the amount of income tax for the year 208 to KRW 301,60 to KRW 2016 to KRW 306,2016 to KRW 2016.

C) On September 13, 2016, Defendant ○○ Tax Office’s disposition of September 13, 2016 on global income tax for the year 2015, regarding the amount of reconciliation recommendation does not constitute “other income” under the Income Tax Act, and the amount of reconciliation recommendation as to the Plaintiff KimCC’s filing a request for correction of global income tax amount of KRW 0,00,00,000 under the Income Tax Act, deemed the amount of global income tax as “ earned income” under the Income Tax Act, and reduced the amount of

(1) With respect to the portion of KRW 85,692, which is not reduced, a disposition rejecting a partial correction of a claim for correction and ② a disposition imposing global income tax for the tax year 2015, which is based on " earned income", also becomes the same.

D) In addition, the disposition of October 1, 2016 on global income tax for the period from 2012 to 2014 by the head of the ○○ Tax Office has the nature of imposing a new global income tax for each taxable period.

E) Accordingly, Defendant ○○○○○ Tax Office’s disposition against Plaintiff KimCC is as listed below: ① a partial refusal of correction as of September 13, 2016 on global income tax for the year 2015; ② a disposition of imposition as of September 13, 2016 on global income tax for the year 2015; and ③ a disposition of imposition as of October 1, 2016 on global income tax for the year 2012 or 2014; and

5) Plaintiff AD

A) On July 13, 2016, Plaintiff AD claimed that the global income tax amount belonging to the year 2015 was zero won against Defendant ○○ director of the tax office, and filed a claim for correction seeking the refund of KRW 10,909,980 of the global income tax belonging to the year 2015.

B) The head of ○○○ Tax Office: (a) deemed that the amount of the settlement recommendation amount received by Plaintiff DD constituted KRW 69,00,000,000; (b) divided the said amount by year from 201 to year 2015; and (c) notified the refund of KRW 10,910,000 on September 9, 2016; and (d) based on the wage and salary distributed in the taxable period from 2011 to 2014, based on the wage and salary income distributed in the taxable period from 2016 to 2014, the amount of the income accrued in the year 201 as KRW 51,10,00 (the first 0,000, the first 185,890, the first 2010, the comprehensive income tax reverted in the year 2013 to KRW 181,601,600 (the first 201, the first 2015).

C) On September 9, 2016, Defendant ○○○ Tax Office’s disposition on global income tax for the year 2015, the amount of which was reduced to KRW 10,910,00 on the Plaintiff’s global income tax amount of KRW 0,00, and the Plaintiff’s request for correction was received in entirety. As such, there is no separate disposition on refusal of correction or new disposition on global income tax for the year 2015.

D) The disposition of September 7, 2016 on global income tax for the period from 2011 to 2014 by the head of the ○○ Tax Office has the nature of imposing a new global income tax for each taxable period.

E) Therefore, the disposition by the head of the Defendant ○○○○○○ on Plaintiff DoD by the head of the tax office is imposed only on each of the tax amounts indicated in the “amount of tax assessed” as of September 7, 2016 on global income tax for the year from 2011 to 2014 as listed below.

6) Plaintiff South E;

A) On July 12, 2016, Plaintiff E claimed that the global income tax amount attributed to Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office in 2015 was KRW 2,260,9671) and sought a correction claim for the refund of KRW 15,400,000 of the global income tax corresponding to the year 2015.

B) The head of ○○○○ Tax Office: (a) deemed that the amount of KRW 77,00,000 paid by the Plaintiff Nam-E constitutes earned income; (b) determined the amount to be divided by year 201 to year 2015; (c) the amount to be reverted to year 22,023,394 to KRW 3,827,589; and (d) notified 18,195,79 on September 13, 2016 (i) KRW 17,60,967 to be paid; (b) KRW 4,362,420 to be paid; (c) KRW 205 to be paid; (d) KRW 3,827,589 to be paid; and (e) determined the amount to be reverted to KRW 205 to be paid for year 201, KRW 275 to be deducted by the amount to be paid for year 201, KRW 3637,2947,2716.

C) On September 13, 2016, concerning the global income tax for the year 2015, Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office’s disposition on September 13, 2016, the amount of reconciliation recommendation does not constitute “other income” under the Income Tax Act, and the amount of such tax has been reduced to KRW 22,023,827,589 from KRW 3,827 to KRW 3,589. As such, the amount of such tax was reduced to KRW 1,566,622 not reduced (i.e., the amount of the above corrected tax amount of KRW 3,827,589 - the amount of the above corrected tax amount of KRW 2,260,967) and the imposition of global income tax for the year 2015.

D) In addition, the disposition taken on October 12, 2016 on global income tax for the period from 2011 to 2014 by the head of the ○○ Tax Office has the nature of imposing a new global income tax for each taxable period.

E) Accordingly, the disposition by the head of the Defendant ○○○○○○○○○ on Plaintiff South E-E is as listed below: ① a partial refusal of correction as of September 13, 2016 on global income tax for the year 2015; ② a disposition of September 13, 2016 on global income tax for the year 2015; ③ a disposition of imposition as of October 12, 2016 on global income tax for the year 201 to 2014; and ③ a disposition of imposition as of global income tax for the year 201 to 2014, respectively.

7) Plaintiff EF

A) On July 12, 2016, Plaintiff FF asserted that the global income tax amount attributed to the year 2015 to Defendant ○○ Head of the Tax Office was KRW 196,641,367 won2) and filed a request for correction seeking the refund of KRW 17,00,000 of the global income tax corresponding to the year 2015.

B) The head of ○○○○ Tax Office: (a) deemed that the amount of KRW 85,00,00,00 paid by the Plaintiff FF constituted earned income was divided by year 201 to year 2015; (b) determined the amount of KRW 229,225,947 to be adjusted by KRW 202,528,426 on September 26, 2016; (c) notified the amount of KRW 213,641,367 + 15,580 to be paid; (d) KRW 205,97 to be paid by the Plaintiff FF; (e) KRW 208,97 to be paid by the Plaintiff FF; and (e) determined the amount of KRW 208,50 to be paid by the Plaintiff FF for KRW 205 to be paid by the amount of KRW 208,50 for year 205 to 2014; and (e) determined the amount of income tax to be reverted to 2014,2981,2014,20101.

C) On September 9, 2016, the disposition of the head of ○○ Tax Office’s global income tax on global income tax for the year 2015, the amount of settlement recommendation does not constitute “other income” under the Income Tax Act, and the amount of settlement recommendation shall be deemed as “ earned income” under the Income Tax Act, and the amount of settlement recommendation shall be reduced to KRW 22,528,426 from KRW 229,225,947 to KRW 202,528,426, and thus, the amount of global income tax shall be reduced to KRW 5,887,059 (=the amount of the above corrected tax amount was 202,52,528,426 - the above adjusted tax amount was 196,641,367 won) and the amount of global income tax for the year 2015.

D) In addition, the disposition taken on October 10, 201 on global income tax for the period from 2011 to 2014 by the head of the ○○ Tax Office has the nature of imposing a new global income tax for each taxable period.

E) Accordingly, the disposition by the head of the Defendant ○○○○○○ Tax Office against the Plaintiff FF is as listed below: ① a disposition rejecting partial correction as of September 9, 2016 on the global income tax for the year 2015; ② a disposition imposing tax as of September 9, 2016 on the global income tax for the year 2015 and ③ a disposition imposing global income tax for the year 201 to 2014 on the global income tax for the global income tax for the year 201 to 2014; and

8) Plaintiff Cho Jae-G

A) On July 12, 2016, Plaintiff Cho G claimed that the global income tax amount attributed to Defendant ○○○ Head of the tax office in 2015 was KRW 146,542 won3) and filed a claim for correction seeking the refund of KRW 12,800,000 of the global income tax corresponding to the year 2015.

B) The head of ○○○○ Tax Office: (a) deemed that the amount of settlement recommendation received by the Plaintiff ChoG constituted 64,00,000 won; (b) deemed that the amount of comprehensive income tax for the year 2015 was adjusted from 13,026,394 to 1,370,672 won; and (c) notified the amount of income tax to be paid at KRW 11,65,72 on September 10, 2016 (i) + KRW 12,946,542 + the amount of tax to be paid at KRW 79,852 - the amount of tax to be paid at KRW 1,370,672; and (d) notified the amount of income tax to be paid at KRW 32,380 (per 201, per 394, per 204, per 2014); and (e) notified the amount of income tax to be paid at KRW 3814,3975,29714.

C) On September 10, 2016, Defendant ○○ Tax Office’s disposition of September 10, 2016 on global income tax for the year 2015, the amount of recommending reconciliation does not correspond to “other income under the Income Tax Act” and the amount of recommending reconciliation is deemed as constituting “ earned income under the Income Tax Act” and thus, the amount of recommending reconciliation is reduced to KRW 1,370,672 from KRW 13,026,394 to KRW 1,370. As such, the amount of global income tax is reduced to KRW 1,224,130 (i) that has not been reduced to KRW 1,370,672 (i) that has not been reduced to KRW 1,370,672 - the amount of requesting correction, and (ii) the amount of global income tax for the year 2015 that has been imposed as “income income.”

D) In addition, the disposition taken on October 15, 2016 on global income tax for the period from 2012 to 2014 by the head of the ○○ Tax Office has the nature of imposing a new global income tax for each taxable period.

E) Accordingly, Defendant ○○○○○ Tax Office’s disposition against Plaintiff ChoG is as listed below: ① a partial refusal of correction as of September 10, 2016 on global income tax for the year 2015; ② a disposition of September 10, 2016 on global income tax for the year 2015; ③ a disposition of imposition as of October 15, 2016 on global income tax for the year 2012 to 2014; and ③ a disposition of imposition as of global income tax for the year 2012 to 2014, respectively.

9) Plaintiff Choi H

A) On July 12, 2016, Plaintiff H claimed that the global income tax amount belonging to the year 2015 was zero won against Defendant ○○○ Head of the tax office, and sought a correction claim seeking a refund of KRW 16,807,822 of the global income tax corresponding to the year 2015.

B) The Defendant ○○○○○ Head of the tax office: (a) deemed that the amount of KRW 86,00,00 paid to the Plaintiff ○○○○○ was classified as earned income for 201 to 2015; (b) adjusted the amount of KRW 18,303,15 to KRW 981,691; and (c) notified the amount of KRW 17,321,466 on September 20, 2016 (i) KRW 17,572,270 + KRW 730,877, KRW 986, KRW 47, KRW 97, KRW 275, KRW 47, KRW 986, KRW 57, KRW 97, KRW 97, KRW 475, KRW 986, KRW 57, KRW 986, KRW 196, KRW 57, KRW 1965, KRW 57, KRW 1986, KRW 2965.

C) First, the disposition of January 5, 201 on global income tax for the period from 2011 to 2014 by the head of the ○○○ Tax Office has the nature of imposing a new global income tax for each taxable period.

D) Next, with respect to the global income tax on the global income for the year 2015, the disposition dated September 20, 2016 is against the Plaintiff’s request for the correction of the amount of settlement recommendation by the lowest HH does not constitute “other income” under the Income Tax Act, and the amount of settlement recommendation by the Plaintiff’s request for the correction of the amount of global income tax on the global income tax on the income

Since global income tax amount is reduced to KRW 981,691 from KRW 16,807,822, the amount of global income tax is reduced to KRW 16,80,82, and ① a disposition rejecting partial correction of the amount of KRW 981,691, which has not been reduced, and ② a disposition imposing global income tax on KRW 2015, which has been imposed as " earned income." However, the amount of such tax ex officio on January 5, 2017.

1,563,874 won increased, and thus, the initial taxation disposition is not absorption of the increased tax disposition, but partial rejection disposition is not absorption of the increased tax disposition (in cases where the tax authority issued a revised disposition against the taxpayer’s request for correction and subsequently issued an increased or decreased tax amount ex officio after the request for correction, such a revised disposition shall not be absorption of the increased tax disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du8972, Oct. 14, 2005).

E) Accordingly, Defendant ○○○○ Tax Office’s disposition with respect to Plaintiff H is as listed below: (i) a partial refusal of correction as of September 20, 2016 on global income tax for the year 2015; (ii) a disposition imposing each amount of tax indicated on global income tax for the year 201-201 to 2014; and (iii) a disposition of increased rectification as of January 5, 2017 on global income tax for the year 2015.

10) Plaintiff Park △△△△

가) 원고 박△△은 2016. 7. 12. 피고 ▲▲세무서장에게 2015년 귀속 종합소득세액이 0원이라 주장하며 2015년 귀속 종합소득세 10,381,163원의 환급을 구하는 경정청구를 하였다.

나) 피고 ▲▲세무서장은 '원천징수의무자가 신고・납부한 세금의 환급청구권은 원천징수의무자인 소외 회사에 있다'는 이유로 2016. 9. 7. 원고 박△△의 경정청구를 거부하는 처분을 하였다.

다) 이후 위 조세심판에서 나머지 피고들의 처분 방식이 적법한 것으로 판단되자, 피고 ▲▲세무서장은 원고 박△△이 지급받은 화해권고금액 62,000,000원이 근로소득에 해당한다고 보아 위 금원을 2011년~2015년 귀속연도별로 안분하여, 2017. 5. 31. 2011년 귀속 종합소득세를 1,166,277원(당초 0원)으로 결정하고 기납부세액 3,388,344원을 공제한 후 2,222,067원(= 기납부세액 3,388,344원 - 위 경정세액 1,166,277원)을 환급하였고, 2012년 귀속 종합소득세를 3,011,931원(당초 0원)으로 결정하고 기납부세액 4,031,589원을 공제한 후 1,019,658원(= 기납부세액 4,031,589원 - 위 경정세액3,011,931원)을 환급하였으며, 2013년 귀속 종합소득세를 2,711,946원(당초 0원)으로결정하고 기납부세액 3,821,317원을 공제한 후 1,109,371원(= 기납부세액 3,821,317원- 위 경정세액 2,711,946원)을 환급하였고, 2014년 귀속 종합소득세를 2,041,665원(당초 0원)으로 결정하고 기납부세액 2,957,932원을 공제한 후 916,267원(= 기납부세액2,957,932원 - 위 경정세액 2,041,665원)을 환급하였으며, 2015년 귀속 종합소득세를10,381,163원에서 0원으로 경정하고 미납세액 2,018,837원을 납부고지하였다.

라) 피고 ▲▲세무서장의 2016. 9. 7.자 처분은, 원고 박△△의 종합소득세액 0원으로의 경정청구에 대하여 이를 전부 거부한 것으로 경정거부처분에 해당하지만, 2017. 5. 31. 2015년 귀속 종합소득세액이 0원으로 직권 감액되었으므로 경정거부처분은 더 이상 존재하지 않게 되었고, 2011년~2014년 귀속 종합소득세에 관한 2017. 5. 31.자 처분은 각 과세기간별로 새로운 종합소득세 부과처분의 성질을 가진다.

마) 따라서 원고 박△△에 대한 피고 ▲▲세무서장의 처분은 아래 표 기재와 같이 2011년~2014년 귀속 종합소득세에 관한 2017. 5. 31.자 각 '경정세액'란 기재 각 세액의 부과처분만이 존재한다(2017. 5. 31. 2,018,837원에 관한 납부고지가 이루어졌으나, 이는 미납세액에 관한 것으로 부과처분이 아닌 징수처분에 해당한다. 원고 박△△이 그 미납세액 2,018,837원에 관한 징수처분을 다투고 있지 아니함은 기록상 명백하다).

4. Determination as to whether the part requesting revocation of a disposition rejecting correction is legitimate

On this premise, this article examines ex officio the legitimacy of the claim for revocation of the corrective refusal.

A. Relevant legal principles

In a case where a taxpayer also files a lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of global income tax for the same taxable period as well as a lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of global income tax for the same amount of tax for the same taxable period, barring any special circumstance, on the part of a claim seeking revocation of the revocation of the disposition overlapping with the part of a claim seeking revocation of the disposition seeking revocation of the imposition of global income tax for the same or increased amount of tax in order to avoid duplication of deliberation on the determination of the same tax liability and conflict with determination, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du8972, Oct. 14, 2005).

B. Whether the part of the claim for revocation of the correction refusal disposition by the Plaintiff Park ○, LeeA, LeeB, LeeB, KimCC, Southern, Park E-F, and ChoG is legitimate

1) As indicated in attached Table 1. List, the aforementioned Plaintiffs sought revocation of the Defendants’ disposition rejecting the correction of the global income tax (part 3 of the above Table) regarding the claim for correction pertaining to global income tax attributed to year 2015, and separately seek revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax belonging to year 2015 (part 4 of the above Table).

2) However, as seen earlier, the Defendants’ disposition on global income tax for the year 2015 on the above Plaintiffs is identical to the nature of the disposition rejecting the correction and the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2015 on global income tax, and the grounds for the disposition also constitute “ earned income under the Income Tax Act.” As such, according to the aforementioned legal doctrine, the aforementioned issues are deemed to be concluded at once in a lawsuit disputing the tax amount on global income tax imposition for the year 2015, and there is no interest or need to seek the revocation of the disposition rejecting the correction of the same tax amount to avoid duplication of the deliberation on the confirmation of the same tax liability and conflict with the determination. Accordingly, the part claiming the revocation of the disposition rejecting the correction by the above Plaintiffs is unlawful as there is no interest in

C. Whether the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the disposition rejecting correction was lawful

1) As indicated in the attached Table 1. List, Plaintiff H sought a revocation of each disposition of tax assessment on global income tax from 2011 to 2015 (as indicated in the attached Table 1. (3) and global income tax from 2011 to 2015 (as indicated in the attached Table 1.).

2) However, as seen earlier, on September 20, 2016, the head of Defendant ○○○ Tax Office issued a disposition to refuse partial correction of the amount of global income tax amount of KRW 0,000,000, by reducing the said amount of tax to KRW 981,691 on September 20, 2016, but issued a disposition to refuse partial correction of the said amount of tax ex officio on January 5, 2017 to increase the amount of tax to KRW 1,563,874, and Plaintiff ○○○ Tax Office sought revocation of the said two dispositions in the instant lawsuit. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, Plaintiff ○○ Tax Office sought revocation of the said two dispositions. Accordingly, in order to avoid duplication or conflict with determination in light of the foregoing legal principles, Plaintiff 1,563,874 won, including the amount of tax resulting from the said disposition to refuse partial correction, is sufficient and necessary to seek revocation of the said disposition’s refusal to partially revoke the Plaintiff’s request for revocation.

D. Whether the revocation of the disposition rejecting rectification of the Plaintiff DoD and Park △△△ was legitimate

1) As indicated in attached Table 1. List, the above Plaintiffs seek revocation of each tax disposition on global income tax (as indicated in attached Table 1.3) and global income tax (as indicated in attached Table 4) from 2011 to 2014.

2) 그러나 앞서 본 것처럼 ① 피고 ○○세무서장은 2015년 귀속 종합소득세에 관한 원고 이DD의 경정청구를 받아들여 2015년 귀속 종합소득세의 세액을 0원으로 경정하였으므로, 피고 ○○세무서장의 경정거부처분은 존재하지 아니하고, ② 피고 ▲▲세무서장은 2015년 귀속 종합소득세에 관한 원고 박△△의 경정청구를 거부하였다가, 이후 2017. 5. 31. 2015년 귀속 종합소득세의 세액을 0원으로 직권 감액경정하였으므로, 피고 ▲▲세무서장의 경정거부처분도 더 이상 존재하지 않게 되었다. 따라서 위 원고들의 경정거부처분 취소청구 부분은 그 취소의 대상이 존재하지 않거나 취소를 구할 이익이 없는 것으로서, 부적법하다.

E. Sub-committee

In full view of the above, the part of the plaintiffs' claim to revoke the correction refusal disposition is unlawful.

5. Determination on the legality of the disposition imposing global income tax

(a) Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 3. The entry in the relevant statutes is as follows.

(b) Fact of recognition;

According to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged.

1) The Plaintiffs filed a claim for confirmation of invalidity of dismissal in the preceding lawsuit and filed a claim for the payment of wages during the period of dismissal. The amount of the wages was calculated on the basis of the wages that the Plaintiffs received while in office in the non-party company.

2) In the process of a prior suit, the non-party company presented its opinion on the conciliation to the full bench, and the main contents are as follows.

A) Opinions on the overall conciliation

○ In the process of resignation of the Plaintiffs, insofar as there is no strong pressure by the Nonparty Company at all, there is no difference between voluntary retirement, recommendation, resignation, etc. as a means of general restructuring of the companies undergoing the management crisis. However, there is a little difference in that there is a lack of separate retirement consolation benefits because the financial standing of the Nonparty Company is too difficult at the time. Accordingly, the Nonparty Company has an intention to comply with compensation at the level of ex post facto payment of retirement consolation benefits

○ The current management situation of the non-party company is very difficult, and the number of employees currently in office is about 70, and this number alone is not only a number of current employees, and if multiple workers are reinstated, there is a need for restructuring again.

○ The non-party company shall present a mediation plan in four types. In consideration of whether the plaintiffs have submitted a written resignation or the possibility of applying the principle of invalidation, etc., ① Persons eligible for temporary layoff benefits for three months, ② Persons eligible for temporary layoff benefits for one year (12 months) (12 months), ③ Persons eligible for reinstated or one year (1 year), and ④ Persons eligible for temporary layoff benefits for one year and six months (1 year and six months).

(1) Persons eligible for temporary layoff benefits for a period of three months: Plaintiffs who cannot be deemed to be unfair dismissal, and Plaintiffs who cannot seek confirmation of invalidity of dismissal under the principle of invalidation.

② Persons eligible for temporary layoff benefits for one year: Plaintiffs who have immediately submitted a written resignation after the notification of persons eligible for restructuring and the Plaintiffs who have submitted a written resignation, who have immediately submitted a written resignation in accordance with a request for submission of the written resignation, shall be determined voluntarily as such.

(3) Reinstatement or a person eligible for temporary layoff benefits for one year: A person eligible for temporary layoff benefits for one year, but currently is deemed to be able to work through reinstatement in the non-party company, and shall be able to be reinstated or paid one-year temporary layoff benefits at his/her option.

④ Persons eligible for temporary layoff benefits for one year and six months: The Plaintiffs, who submitted a resignation certificate after January 12, 201, submitted the resignation certificate, are only submitted during the period of submission of the resignation, and there is a difference between those who are naturally judged to voluntarily resign.

B) Opinions on individual plaintiffs

○ Plaintiff EA: Persons eligible for temporary layoff benefits for a three-month period;

- A person subject to disciplinary action under the rules of employment who is subject to criminal punishment against him/her;

- A resignation prior to the notice of selection of the person subject to restructuring as a result of the team leader meeting

- The submission of resignation is deemed to have been voluntarily made and subject to disciplinary dismissal at the time of reinstatement;

○ Plaintiff H: Persons eligible for temporary layoff benefits for 12 months

- A resignation prior to the notice of selection of the person subject to restructuring as a result of the team leader meeting

- It is judged to be a voluntary resignation.

○ Plaintiff FF: Persons eligible for temporary layoff benefits for a three-month period;

- The annual earned income far exceeds the salaries of the non-party company

- A resignation prior to the notice of selection of the person subject to restructuring as a result of the team leader meeting

- Not only constitutes a voluntary resignation but also there is no reason to reinstate to the non-party company;

○ Plaintiff △△△△: Selection of reinstatement or payment of temporary layoff benefits for 12 months;

- corresponding to currently reinstated personnel:

- The submission of a letter of resignation on January 12, 201 after the receipt of the guide mail that is in the state of suspension;

- It is judged to be a voluntary resignation.

○ Plaintiff South E: Persons eligible for temporary layoff benefits for 12 months;

- A resignation prior to the notice of selection of the person subject to restructuring as a result of the team leader meeting

- It is judged to be a voluntary resignation.

○ Plaintiff B: Persons eligible for temporary layoff benefits for 12 months;

- The submission of a letter of resignation on January 12, 201 after the receipt of the guide mail

- It is judged to be a voluntary resignation.

○ Plaintiff KimCC: Persons eligible for temporary layoff benefits for 12 months

- The submission of a letter of resignation on January 12, 201 after the receipt of the guide mail that is in the state of suspension;

- The attendance at the Assembly of Trade Unions on January 8, 2011

- It is judged to be a voluntary resignation.

○ Plaintiff Cho GG: Selection from among reinstatement or the payment of temporary layoff benefits for 12 months

-be reinstated personnel;

- The attendance at the Assembly of Trade Unions on January 8, 2011

- The submission of a letter of resignation on January 12, 201 after the receipt of the guide mail

- It is judged to be a voluntary resignation.

○ Plaintiff DoD: Persons eligible for temporary layoff benefits for 12 months;

- The submission of a letter of resignation on January 12, 201 after the receipt of the guide mail that is in the state of suspension;

- It is judged to be a voluntary resignation.

○ Plaintiff Park ○: Selection from among reinstatement or the payment of temporary layoff benefits for 12 months;

-be reinstated personnel;

- The submission of a letter of resignation on January 12, 201 after the receipt of the guide mail that is in the state of suspension;

- It is judged to be a voluntary resignation.

3) The reasons for the decision indicated in the letter of recommendation for reconciliation in the instant case are as follows.

[Reasons for Ruling of Recommending Compromise]

In fact, the submission of resignation by the plaintiffs and the parties concerned merely borrowed the form of a recommendation agency, and it is highly likely that they have voluntarily submitted resignation in the process of restructuring to overcome the managerial difficulties of the non-party company (However, in the case of Kim○○, Ansan○, and in the case of Nam○, a quasi-executive or a business division with which the financial structure or management status of the non-party company can be easily known at the time of submission of resignation, and the submission of resignation is distinguished from other plaintiffs as the situation where the non-party company was submitted in the process of restructuring or with sufficiently understanding the necessity thereof. However, in light of the current financial status and the number of employees in the non-party company, it seems that the current financial structure or management status of the non-party company has not been improved notwithstanding the plaintiffs, despite the resignation of a considerable number of employees including the plaintiffs, it seems that the long-term period has lapsed after the submission of resignation, taking into account the overall purport of evidence and arguments, 0% of the amount corresponding to the non-party company's total amount of wages at the end of August, 2015.

4) On the other hand, with respect to the parties who did not recommend a compromise in the preceding lawsuit

In the case of employees of less than the Vice-President, the claim shall be accepted, and the dismissal shall be invalidated as follows:

to order wages during the period of dismissal, and to appoint the Vice Minister or higher officers and employees;

the court rendered a judgment dismissing the claim.

○○○○ (Tgu District Court 2013Gahap206263), Ansan, ○○, Ma○○○, Ma○○○, Ma○○, and Ma○○ (Tgu District Court 2013Gahap20603): Partial winning of the case.

- The preparation and submission of their resignations are substantially the dismissal of the defendant.

- In the dismissal of the above five persons, it appears that the non-party company has made an urgent managerial necessity, has made efforts to avoid dismissal, and has made good faith consultation with the representative of workers. However, it is difficult to determine reasonable and fair criteria for dismissal and to deem that the person was selected accordingly, the dismissal of the above five persons is null and void because it does not meet the requirements under Article 24 of the Labor Standards Act.

○○○○○ (Tgu District Court 2013Gahap206263), gold○, ○○, Nam○, Jeon○○, Jeon○○, Lee○, Red○, Red○, O○, ○○, Lee○, Lee○, ○○, Lee○, ○○, and Kim○ (Tgu District Court 2013Gahap20603): All loss.

- They cannot be viewed as the dismissal of the defendant, since they were the vice head or higher of the non-party company, voluntarily resigned as officers and employees.

C. Determination

1) Wage and salary income under Article 4(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, regardless of its payment form or name, includes not only all economic benefits in a quid pro quo relationship with the provision of labor by nature, but also benefits that form the contents of working conditions closely related to the provision of labor on the premise of labor, other than direct remuneration for labor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Du39726, Oct. 27, 20

2) In light of the above legal principles, the instant case is a health care team and the facts acknowledged as above, and considering the following circumstances revealed in the argument of the instant case, it is determined that the Reconciliation Recommendation Board, which the Plaintiffs received from the non-party company, pursuant to the decision of the Reconciliation Recommendation, constitutes an earned income that the Plaintiffs received from the labor provision as a worker of the non-party company and the remuneration relationship. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ above assertion on different

(1) The Plaintiffs filed a joint claim for confirmation of invalidity of dismissal against the non-party company, as well as the claim for payment of wages during the period of dismissal, and the amount to be claimed in the claim for payment of wages was calculated on the basis of the wages that they received from the non-party company. In particular, the Plaintiffs deducted the intermediate income received from the non-party company after retirement from the non-party company and deducted it only to the extent that it exceeds the shutdown allowance (at least 70/100 of the average wage) pursuant to

B. In the case of the dismissal, the worker in question claims the payment of wages on the basis of Article 538(1) of the Civil Act against the employer based on the premise that the dismissal is null and void, and in the case that the dismissal is illegal, the worker has the right to claim damages equivalent to the amount of wages during the period of dismissal, and both parties are concurrent in the relationship of claims. However, the plaintiffs exercise the right to claim the payment of wages on the premise that the employment relationship is sustained because the dismissal is clearly null and void (in this respect, the case where the plaintiffs received the payment of wages on June 14, 1991 (in this case, Supreme Court Decision 90Da11813 Decided June 14, 191 cited by the plaintiffs) is inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

Secondly, the non-party company presented a mediation opinion to the effect that the non-party company denies unfair dismissal against the plaintiffs in the preceding lawsuit, but can pay part of the amount as retirement consolation money in consideration of the financial status of the non-party company. However, the decision of this case's reconciliation recommendation is likely to be made in a non-voluntary manner in the process of restructuring by submitting the plaintiffs' resignation in the process of restructuring, on the grounds that the non-party company's resignation is not less than the Vice-President or the non-party company's non-party company's resignation.

In the case where a judgment is rendered on the basis of the decision of recommending reconciliation of the full bench in the preceding lawsuit, the decision was rendered on the grounds that the preparation and submission of a letter of resignation constitutes a non-voluntary dismissal for the employees other than those of the officers and employees of the partial deputy head or higher, and that the dismissal did not meet the requirements prescribed in Article 24 of the Labor Standards Act, and that the dismissal was null and void (limited to the interest rate on delay damages). Therefore, if the judgment was rendered on the objection of the decision of recommending reconciliation, the plaintiffs were sentenced to the decision of ordering the invalidation of the dismissal and the payment of wages during the period of the dismissal.

5) However, in the mediation opinion, the non-party company presented the opinion that the non-party company is "the subject of disciplinary dismissal under the rules of employment after being subject to criminal punishment for the criminal act of embezzlement of union assistance expenses." However, even if it did not go through the disciplinary dismissal procedure, the dismissal made without going through the disciplinary dismissal procedure is unfair and invalid.

⑹ 원고들 주장대로라면, 법원의 화해권고결정에 이의하여 해고의 정당성을 끝까지 다투어 판결로써 부당해고를 인정받고 그 해고기간 동안의 임금을 지급받은 사람들은 그 임금이 근로소득에 해당함으로써 소득세를 납부하여야 하는 반면에, 증거의 편재나 분쟁의 조속한 해결 등의 사유로 화해권고결정에 동의하여 화해권고금액을 지급받은 사람들은 그 화해권고금액이 근로소득이나 기타소득에도 해당하지 아니하여 소득세의 과세대상에서 벗어난다는 결론에 이른다. 그런데 위와 같은 차별은 오로지 화해권고결정에 이의하여 판결을 선고받았는지 아니면 화해권고결정에 동의하였는지 여부에 의하여 발생하는 것일 뿐, 법률적, 경제적인 합리성에 근거한 것은 아니어서 그러한 차별을 합리적이라고 보기 어려울 뿐만 아니라, 이는 오히려 적극적으로 권리를 주장하고 증명활동을 수행하여 법적으로 권리의 정당성을 인정받기까지 한 소송당사자를 부당하게 차별하는 것이다.

6. Conclusion

Among the lawsuits in this case, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for revocation of the correction refusal disposition is unlawful, and all of them are dismissed. Since the remaining claims of the plaintiffs are without merit, they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.