Seoul Administrative Court 2016Guhap63323 ( September 30, 2016)

The adequacy of retirement benefits shall be determined in consideration of the financial status of the corporation, the retirement benefits of executives in the same position, the continuity of the provisions on payment of retirement

(1) The adequacy of retirement benefits under the retirement benefit payment provision shall be determined by taking into account the financial situation and business prospects of the corporation, the retirement benefits of the same position, the continuity of the provisions on payment of retirement benefits, etc., and the person who claims non-realistic retirement must prove the retirement benefits.

Article 19 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 44 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act; Article 52 of the Corporate Tax

2016Nu67969 Requests for cancellation of corporate tax imposition disposition, etc.

○ Stock Company

○ Head of the tax office

on October 07, 2017

on October 14, 2017

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. According to the reduction of claims in the trial, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance were modified as follows.

A. On August 3, 2015, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over Defendant 00’s tax office’s imposition of corporate tax on the Plaintiff shall revoke the part exceeding the indicated portion in the “political tax amount” column in the attached Table 1 among the imposition of corporate tax as indicated in the attached Table 1.

B. The portion exceeding the description in the column of “political income” in the attached Table 2 list that Defendant 00 Commissioner of the National Tax Service provided to the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Purport of claim

On August 3, 2015, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff shall revoke the portion in excess of the entries in the separate sheet No. 1 of the separate sheet No. 1 of the corporate tax imposed on the Plaintiff on August 3, 2015, and the portion in excess of the entry in the separate sheet No. 2 of the separate sheet No. 2 of the notice of change in the income amount, which Defendant 00 Commissioner of the National Tax Service provided against the Plaintiff, shall be revoked (the Plaintiff has reduced the claim of compensation in the immediate trial).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal, addition, or deletion as follows. Thus, the court's explanation on this case is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ Up to the 3rd page of the first instance court ruling, “(3) through (4)” were deleted from the 4th page of the first instance court ruling, and the 4th page [2] to the 6th page “as above,” the 6th to 8th page “as follows:

As a result, the head of the tax office of 00 tax office corrected corporate tax as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 as stated in the separate sheet No. 2, and the defendant 00 Commissioner of the National Tax Service notified the change of income as stated in the separate sheet No. 2. The amount of corporate tax stated in the separate sheet No. 1 as stated in the corporate tax amount stated in the separate sheet No. 2009, the amount of corporate tax of 638,000, the amount of corporate tax for the business year of 2009, which is the amount of corporate tax not included in the separate sheet No. 2, and the amount of corporate tax stated in the separate sheet No. 2, the "political income" in the separate sheet No. 2, the amount of income accrued in the year No. 2011, 2012, and 2013 is the amount of income accrued from the representative director's bonus due to non-deductible of income, the portion of corporate tax to be stated in the separate sheet No. 2, the separate sheet No. 1.

○ Part 8 of the Decision of the first instance court No. 2, “Non-indicted 8,” added the following, and considering the circumstances that the Plaintiff is a family company in which most of its executives are related persons, such as relatives.

○ up to the 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 11th 11th 206

The director of the tax office has calculated the remuneration of an officer on the basis of the national average of real estate rental without considering the number of employees, income, type of business, etc.

○ Part 13 of the Decision 13 of the Court of First Instance is not “I” and the following is added:

[The deceased BB, among the executives of the plaintiff, retired from the representative director immediately after the revision that the base payment rate of the representative director increased from 3 to 5 every year. However, there is no evidence to deem that the above standard payment rate was excessive compared to other corporations. The above retirement is only once more than 10 times until 2013, and the net BB cannot be deemed the same as the plaintiff's founder and the representative director, and it cannot be said that the labor or contribution during the period of service is equal to the other executives. Since the net B remains in excess of 5 billion won after the retirement of the deceased B, the same retirement benefits could have been paid thereafter in light of the plaintiff's financial situation or business prospects, such as the fact that AA applied the above revised provision at the time of retirement of the representative director. In light of the fact that AA applied the above revised provision, it cannot be deemed retirement benefits paid at the time of retirement on November 30, 2010].

○ From 12 to 14 pages 13 to 14 of the judgment of the first instance court is as follows.

(2) The following circumstances revealed by the Plaintiff’s aforementioned facts and evidence. ① CCC, D, EE, F, GG, and H were employed as an executive officer and employee, and the Plaintiff was paid for only their own duties within the Plaintiff, and ② There were minutes of the board of directors signed and sealed for a period other than FF directors (the date of January 8, 2010, May 7, 2010). Since CFF did not appear to have been employed for 20 months after the Plaintiff’s resignation, it is difficult to find that CFF had been employed for 10 months after the Plaintiff’s resignation and 20 days after the Plaintiff’s resignation, it was difficult to find that CFF had been employed for 3 months after the Plaintiff’s resignation and 20 months after the Plaintiff’s resignation, and that it was difficult to find that CFF had been employed for 10 months after the Plaintiff’s resignation and 30 months after the Plaintiff’s resignation and 10 days after the Plaintiff’s resignation.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and all appeals by the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit, and the decision of the court of first instance was modified as the decision of the court of first instance by the reduction of claims by the plaintiff in the court of first instance.