Busan District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-3113 ( October 13, 2015)

Cho-2014-Divisions-2941 (2014.03)

The amount received under the pretext of the honorarium at the time of retirement shall be subject to the taxation of other income in any name.

A disposition imposing other income tax on the money paid temporarily in the nature of compensation at the time of service shall be justified by deeming it as a kind of honorarium.

Article 21 of the Income Tax Act

2015Nu20800

AAA

○ Head of tax office

Busan District Court Decision 2014Guhap3113 Decided February 13, 2015

May 8, 2015

June 5, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. On March 5, 2014, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of global income tax ○○○○ for the Plaintiff on March 5, 2011.

1. The issues of this case and the judgment of the court of first instance

A. The issues of the instant case

On March 10, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ who received retirement allowances from a newB constituted other income, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of global income tax for the year 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The key issue of this case is whether the disposition of this case is unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff’s repayment of the loan was made to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was received from the newB, and the total amount of the ○○○○○○○○○○

B. Judgment of the court of the first instance

The court of the first instance held that: (a) the Plaintiff received ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 2,00 on May 12, 201, and received ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 2,01; (b) the Plaintiff was required to receive an amount of retirement allowance from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 2,00 on June 3, 201; and (c) the Plaintiff was able to receive a reasonable amount of retirement allowance on November 27, 2008 from ○○○○○ 2,00,000 won on the notarial deed, and the Plaintiff was able to receive a new amount of money loan from ○○ 1,600,000 won on the notarial deed.

2. The judgment of this Court and the citing the judgment of the first instance court

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful since the loan was repaid to the ○○○○○○○○○○, which was received by the plaintiff from the newB, and it does not constitute other income. However, in light of all the circumstances cited by the judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance that held the disposition of this case lawful is justifiable.

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is the same as the part on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.