Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap7216 ( October 21, 2014)

The disposition that the money of this case received by the plaintiff at the time of retirement shall not be regarded as retirement income and imposed as a honorarium.

It is reasonable to view that the funds in this case constitute one of the other income, not the non-party company, but the non-party company, in return for the plaintiff's resignation from the office of executive of the non-party company and active cooperation in the transfer of management rights through the transfer of management rights.

2014Nu43594 Global income and revocation of disposition

IsaA

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap7216 decided January 21, 2014

September 19, 2014

October 17, 2014

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 shall revoke the disposition of imposition of the global income tax on June 1, 2012 against the plaintiff on the plaintiff on June 1, 2012.

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

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the following matters, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

① On the 5th page 21, “Instrutably,” the statement of evidence Nos. 3, 4, 8, and 9 is insufficient to recognize that a privateB paid the instant money to the Plaintiff on behalf of the non-party company as retirement allowance, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.”

(2) On face 5, the following shall be added to Chapter 21:

"(8) The plaintiff asserts that when the non-party company dismisses the plaintiff due to a cause not attributable to the plaintiff, the non-party company is obligated to pay the amount arising under Article 4 of the Labor Contract (Evidence A6) to the plaintiff by subrogation, and the non-partyB was subrogated by the non-party B to prevent M&A; and the occurrence of contingent liability under the contract. However, the non-party company did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the non-party company dismissed the plaintiff as above, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted."

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.