early trial 2014west0826 (Law No. 146.30)

The amount that a number of unspecified retirees received according to the individual agreement of specific employees, not the amount that they received according to the retirement allowance payment rules, constitutes earned income.

It is difficult to see that the money paid under an agreement constitutes a retirement allowance enforced under the statutes, rules on the payment of retirement allowances, etc., and, in the absence of any data on the payment of remuneration, the Plaintiff cannot regard the entire money received for one year before his/her retirement as a "average wage" that serves as the basis for the calculation of retirement allowances, and it is unclear whether the money received each year includes a retirement allowance, and therefore, it is difficult to see part

Article 22 (Retirement Income)

2014Guhap6861 global income and revocation of such disposition

Yellow AA

000 director of the tax office

December 1, 2014

on December 22, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The part of the disposition imposed by the Defendant on July 10, 2013 on the Plaintiff regarding the imposition of global income tax for the year 2009 exceeds the OO won shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was registered as a business operator of BB from December 2006 to February 2012 as the Plaintiff’s member of BB, and from December 2006 to May 2009, as BB from June 2009 and from June 2009 to February 2012.

B. On March 4, 2013, to May 3, 2013, the director of the regional tax office of the Korea Regional Tax Office confirmed that doorCC is a de facto business with 14 branches of BB members, a nationwide network hospital, and notified the Plaintiff, etc. of the tax data by regarding the distributed income of a de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto.

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on January 15, 2014, on the ground that it was a retirement income, not an earned income, on the ground that the Plaintiff received an OOO (hereinafter referred to as “the instant issues amount”) from the literatureCC in 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant case”). However, the Plaintiff was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on June 30, 2014.

Facts that there is no dispute with recognition, Gap Nos. 1, 3, and Eul Nos. 1 through 3

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings, including branch numbers,

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

The defendant asserts that the part of the disposition of this case which exceeds the amount subject to the above objection and the appeal is unlawful since the plaintiff raised an objection and tried to file an appeal against the part of the OO.

According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 5, the plaintiff filed an objection with the defendant on October 2, 2013 that "the disposition of imposition of OO of the global income tax belonging to the business year 2009 shall be revoked and refunded," and the reason for objection is that "the retirement allowance was paid in advance during the past period among the amount received from the representative of the business year 2009, i.e., interim settlement (on November 30, 2009 at the time of interim settlement), although there was a retirement allowance, the investigating agency determined that the amount was included in the global income tax after being decided to dismiss the above objection on November 5, 2013, and filed an appeal against the above decision, and the Tax Tribunal determined that the issue amount in this case constituted "the income other than the income income from dispute" after the title "the income from dispute."

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff asserted the key amount of the instant disposition as earned income in the pre-trial proceeding on the part of the instant disposition as earned income. The Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The key issue amount of this case is that the Plaintiff received as retirement allowance from the doorCC, and thus constitutes retirement income. Even if the entire key issue amount of this case does not constitute retirement income, it is reasonable to view that the lower limit of retirement allowance under Articles 5 and 8 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act is retirement income.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On November 30, 2009, the Plaintiff agreed to the following terms and conditions with LCC:

“A” and “A” agree as follows:

1. "A" pays OO won to "B" by November 30, 2009 as advance payment for retirement benefits and retirement consolation benefits.

2. “B” will work for BB members until December 5, 2009, and will work for BB members as to whether to renew the contract thereafter.

3.B shall not raise any objection with respect to withdrawals under this Agreement by filing a civil petition with the Ministry of Labor against whether or not retirements and amount of retirement allowances or retirement consolation benefits.

4. "B" shall confirm that there is no claim or obligation between "A" and "B" and shall not then bring a civil action against "B" for any reason.

The Plaintiff continued to serve from BB to February 2012 even after the said agreement, and there was no retirement allowance for the period of the said agreement upon retirement from February 2012.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleading, and the purport of the whole pleading.

D. Determination

(1) The income of a resident is classified into global income (interest, dividend, business, labor, pension, other income), retirement income, and capital gains (Article 4(1) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply). The tax base for the global income and retirement income of the resident shall be separately calculated (Article 14(1)), and the global income tax and retirement income tax rate shall be applied to the global income and retirement income (Article 55).

Therefore, it is a problem whether the amount of money received by a worker upon retirement should be considered as earned income added to global income, and as retirement income subject to separate taxation.

Article 20 (1) (d) of the Luxembourg Income Tax Act provides that "income received through retirement which does not belong to retirement income" as earned income, and Article 38 (1) 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "retirement allowance, retirement bonus, and other benefits of a similar nature that do not belong to retirement income" shall be included in earned income. Therefore, even if "income received from retirement" is not directly included in retirement income, it shall not be immediately included in retirement income, but shall be subject to separate taxation to be included in retirement income as prescribed by the law, and the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that retirement income as follows:

Article 22 (Retirement Income)

(1) Retirement income shall be the following income generated in the corresponding year:

1. Class A:

(a) Lump sum one time payments for retirement received by a person having Class A employment income;

(b) Voluntary retirement allowances paid to various public officials and private school teachers;

(c) Lump sum one time payments for retirement prescribed by the Presidential Decree that a person having Class A employment income receives for his retirement;

(d) Lump sum return payments or lump sum death payments under the National Pension Act;

(e) Lump-sum payment received under the Public Officials Pension Act, the Military Pension Act, the Pension for Private School Teachers and Staff Act, or the Special Post Offices Act;

(f) Other lump sum payments as prescribed by Presidential Decree among income similar to those under items (a) through (e);

(5) The converted money of severance benefits of employees, which is paid to the National Pension Fund by employers under Article 88 of the National Pension Act, shall be deemed included in the retirement benefits under paragraph (1) 1 (a). In such cases, the converted money of severance benefits shall be deemed paid to

(6) The scope and calculation method of retirement income and other necessary matters shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 42-2 (Scope of Retirement Income)

(1) Retirement income prescribed in Article 22 (1) of the Act shall include any of the following amounts:

4. Retirement benefits payment regulations, employment rules, or labor-management agreements that apply to many and unspecified retirees, retirement allowances, retirement allowances, and other similar benefits.

5. Amount paid in compensation for losses incurred by changes in the retirement allowance payment system, while paying the adjusted retirement payment under Article 8 (2) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act as the provisions on the payment of retirement benefits and the employment rules are amended;

6. A lump-sum amount paid under the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, which falls under any of the following items, and the amount paid as a lump-sum retirement pension under Article 16 (1) 1 of the Korea Scientists and Engineers Mutual-Aid Association Act (hereinafter referred to as "the lump-sum retirement pension"):

(a) Lump sum payment received from a retirement pension plan under the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act;

(b) Lump sum payment received from an individual retirement account under the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act (hereinafter referred to as an "individual retirement account");

(c) Amount withdrawn from a defined contribution plan (hereinafter referred to as the "defined contribution plan") and an individual retirement account under the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act;

(d) A lump sum payment received by a person receiving a pension for early termination, etc. of the pension contract.

The above provision limits the scope of retirement income to the amount that an employer is obligated to pay upon retirement of an employee under the statutes, regulations, labor contracts, collective agreements, etc., and it is deemed that it constitutes retirement income if it is not such retirement income. In other words, it is reasonable to view that the employer’s arbitrary payment of retirement income constitutes retirement income if it is enforced under the statutes with normative power, retirement allowance payment rules, employment rules, or labor-management agreement, etc. among the wages paid upon retirement constitutes retirement income.

Article 18(1) of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits provides that "the plaintiff shall work for BB members until December 5, 2009," and "the plaintiff shall confirm that there is no claim or obligation between the doorCC and shall not later file a civil lawsuit against the doorCC," but it shall not be deemed that the amount paid under the above agreement is a retirement allowance which is enforced under the Acts and subordinate statutes, the rules on the payment of retirement allowances, the rules on employment, or the labor-management agreement, etc. It is difficult for the plaintiff to view that the amount paid under the agreement is a retirement allowance which is enforced by the employer under the provisions of Articles 5 and 8 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits (the total salary for one year before the retirement) x 10% x 35/12(the length of service) . However, if the plaintiff did not establish the retirement allowance system under the provisions of Article 18(1) of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits for 20 years or more, it shall be deemed that the retirement allowance system was established under the Act.

Therefore, the instant disposition, which deemed the key amount as earned income, is lawful.

4. Conclusion

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