1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: “ July 10, 2013” in the second 12th 12th 12th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as “ July 1, 2013.” The Plaintiff’s argument emphasized in the trial is identical to the part on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, except as added in the following paragraphs, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the amount paid as retirement should be classified as retirement income regardless of coercion. However, according to the above facts, 150,000,000 won that the Plaintiff received from C in 209 cannot be deemed as “retirement allowance, retirement allowance, and other similar benefits paid under the payment provision applicable to a large number of non-specific retirement workers” 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 same shall apply). Article 38(1)13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that “retirement allowance, retirement bonus, and other similar benefits that do not belong to retirement income” under Article 38(1)13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be deemed as earned income.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. The judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.