Daejeon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-104182 ( October 16, 2016)

Whether the difference in the total diagnosis amount paid when changing the retirement allowance system from the progressive system to the single-use system is legitimate as a bonus disposition by deeming the difference in the number of diagnosis amount as a temporary payment irrelevant to duties.

The difference in the short-term diagnosis paid to workers who are not realistic retirees shall be equivalent to the temporary payment in charge of the affairs.

Article 44 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

2016Nu11566 Notice of change in the amount of income and revocation thereof.

Xxa;

Daejeon director of the tax office

Daejeon District Court 2015Guhap104182 ( October 16, 2016)

September 22, 2016

October 13, 2016

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 disposition of notification of change in income amount of KRW 2,032,501,734 against the plaintiff on November 27, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's ruling is as follows, except for the addition of Paragraph (2) below to the judgment of the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes again in the trial, and therefore, it refers to the reasons for the judgment of the court of the first instance.

2. The addition;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The short-term diagnosis difference in the instant case was calculated and paid by preferentially settling the amount to be actually paid at the time of the instant employee’s retirement. In substance, it constitutes “retirement income” under Article 42-2(1)5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 24356, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter the same). (2) The Plaintiff paid the short-term diagnosis difference in order to persuade the instant employee in the course of following the request of the Board of Audit and Inspection to abolish and enforce the short-term retirement pay system. The Defendant deemed the short-term diagnosis difference as a non-business-free payment and disposed of the instant amount as a bonus and disposed of the interest expected to cause disputes, and thus, the instant disposition violates the principle of trust protection.

B. Determination

(1) Article 42-2 (1) 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2502, Dec. 24, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that "the amount paid for compensation for losses caused by changes in the retirement allowance payment system shall be included in the scope of "retirement income" as the retirement allowance payment system changes due to changes in the rules and rules of employment for the payment of retirement benefits pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, and the former part of Article 8 (2) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act provides that "the employer may settle and pay retirement allowances for the period of continuous employment before the worker retires," and Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25022, Dec. 24, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "the above interim retirement allowance payment of this case shall not be approved as one of the following reasons under the former part of Article 8 (2).

However, in the case of this case, the fact that the plaintiff paid the short-term diagnosis difference to the employees of this case after the request of the Board of Audit and Inspection to abolish the short-term retirement allowance system and implement the short-term retirement allowance system, does not conflict between the parties, but it cannot be deemed that the request of the Board of Audit and Inspection is a public opinion of the defendant who is the tax authority, and it cannot be deemed that the short-term diagnosis difference is a public opinion that is not subject to taxation. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff's appeal.