Suwon District Court-2016-Gu 66811 ( October 24, 2017)

If the regulations on retirement allowances for officers have been established temporarily to distribute the corporation's funds to a specific officer, it does not fall under the provisions on retirement allowances for officers under the laws and regulations.

The provision on the payment of retirement allowances for officers of the instant case is not intended to pay retirement benefits in actual terms of work, but is merely temporary measure to distribute the corporation's funds to the officers by lending the form of retirement benefits.

Article 26 (Non-Inclusion of Excessive Expenses in Calculation of Losses)

2017Nu8193. Revocation of disposition of notice of change in income amount

OEFC Co., Ltd.

O commissioner of regional tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Guhap6811 Decided October 24, 2017

June 15, 2018

September 7, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's each disposition of KRW 1,451,531,742 for the plaintiff on January 2, 2015, which was rendered against the plaintiff on January 2, 2009, including KRW 2,350,63,875 for the year 2010, and KRW 95,847,940 for the year 201.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this decision are as follows: (a) the fact-finding and decision of the first instance court is just and the payment of retirement allowances to OO et al. for the previous non-performing loans is not the purpose of the distribution of corporate funds; and (b) so long as O has received the above retirement allowances from OO to the plaintiff account again, it is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's argument that it does not constitute the outflow of the company. Therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for addition of the decision that is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's argument that it does not constitute the outflow of the company.

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.