Tax Tribunal 2012Seoul Northern3976 ( December 18, 2012)

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 money in this case is an honorarium, one of other income, not a non-party company, but a non-party company, in return for BB to resign from the office of officer of the non-party company and actively cooperate in the transfer of management right by transfer of management right.

Article 21 of the Income Tax Act

2013Guhap7216 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

AA

EE Director of the Tax Office

November 1, 2013 08

on 21, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant imposed global income tax of KRW 0,000,000,000 on the Plaintiff on June 1, 2012, 2007

The disposition shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 1, 2003, the plaintiff is changed to OO-based ship company (the trade name of O-based ship company after O-based ship company).

was employed by the vice president. The vice president was employed in the company outside the class (hereinafter referred to as the "company outside the class").

B. The representative director of the non-party company and the non-party company holding 100% of the shares issued by the non-party company shall be the non-party company.

1. On February 26, 200,CC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC”) transferred management rights to Nonparty Co., Ltd. and 80% of the shares issued by Nonparty Co., Ltd. to Nonparty Co., Ltd. at KRW 00 billion. Accordingly, the Plaintiff on February 16, 2007

The company retired from the non-party company.

C. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a survey on the source of funds against BB and confirmed that BB paid the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 0 billion on February 23, 2007 and KRW 0 billion on February 27, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant amount”) to the Plaintiff out of KRW 00 billion that BB received with the right of management and the share transfer price for the non-party company, and conducted a tax investigation against the Plaintiff. After that, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, separately from the non-party company, provided that BB paid the instant amount to the Plaintiff as monetary reward or consolation money, and notified the Defendant of the assessment data.

D. Accordingly, the Defendant on June 1, 2012, one of the other incomes with respect to the Plaintiff.

If the amount of global income tax of 0,000,000,000 won for the year 2007 is deemed to be an honorarium, it shall be corrected and notified.

The disposition of this case was taken (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case").

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 29, 2012, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 18, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the Plaintiff received the instant money from BB as retirement allowance as the Plaintiff was dismissed from the non-party company, it constitutes retirement income. Even if not, the amount calculated by multiplying 1/10 of the total salary that the Plaintiff received during one year prior to his retirement by the number of years of continuous service shall be the retirement income, and the remainder shall be deemed as retirement income, as the bonus to the Plaintiff, who is an officer, as an employee. Accordingly, the instant disposition of imposition was unlawful on the premise that the instant money constitutes one of the other income.

B. Relevant statutes

(1) The former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8531 of July 19, 2007)

Article 21 (Other Incomes) ① Other incomes other than interest income, dividend income, real estate rental income, business income, labor income, pension income, retirement income, and capital gains shall be as follows:

17. An honorarium;

C. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the amount of this case received by the Plaintiff from BB constitutes one of the other income, or constitutes retirement income (or part of retirement income, and the remaining wage and salary income), the amount of this case constitutes a reward, which is one of the other income, not the non-party company, as it received from the non-party company, in return for the Plaintiff’s resignation from the office of officer of the non-party company as a result of the transfer of management right and active cooperation in the transfer of management right, and that the disposition of this case is legitimate, and that the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

(1) The written employment contract signed on December 1, 2003 between the plaintiff and the non-party company provides that the non-party company shall pay the amount calculated by converting the plaintiff's annual salary for the last year into the monthly average amount of the plaintiff's final employment year by the retirement age period (based on 2003) determined by the non-party company (based on 2003). However, the retirement income means the temporary salary that the non-party with the labor income receives from the employer upon termination of the employment relationship, and it has the nature of partial follow-up payment of the salary as the salary for continuous service for the long-term employment, and is calculated by the amount of the worker's total pay and the period of service. Accordingly, the above employment contract provision constitutes a penalty provision rather than the retirement allowance provision. Even if the amount was calculated based on the above employment contract, it is difficult to view the amount of this case's payment to the plaintiff, not the non-party company, as the amount was paid by the non-party company to the plaintiff.

(2) On April 8, 2005, the non-party company held a special general meeting of shareholders on April 8, 2005 to abolish the payment provision of retirement allowances for officers, and at the time that the Plaintiff was paid the instant money from BB, there was no provision for

(3) On January 26, 2007, the Plaintiff confirmed that the Plaintiff did not have the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance during the period of his/her service in the part of the acquirer of the non-party company. From February 2007 to August 2007, the acquirer shall pay the Plaintiff the monthly salary of KRW 00 million for six months, and the above salary shall be paid to the Plaintiff on a temporary basis on February 16, 2007. The Plaintiff prepared a written confirmation stating that “The Plaintiff is actively able to assist the acquirer of the non-party company so that the management activities, the real relationship with the branch, and the acquisition of management rights can be achieved without any impediment.”

(4) When paying the amount corresponding to the six-month benefit, KRW 00,000,000 as retirement income, and KRW 00,000,000 as retirement income was deemed as earned income (retirement benefit) and reported and paid the amount of tax.

(5) According to the share sales contract concluded between BB andCC, BB, at the same time, was required to deliver all necessary documents for the registration of resignation, such as a letter of resignation and certificate of personal seal impression of the former executives (including registration directors, executive directors, and auditors) of the non-party company, at the same time, to the basic materials for the non-party company. Therefore, BB seems to have no choice but to demand the Plaintiff as an executive officer to resign in person for the implementation of the share sales

(6) During the tax investigation, DD, the head of the whole finance team of the non-party company, paid to the public official in charge of the non-party company KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000 won for the six-month salary at the time of retirement with statutory retirement allowances and retirement compensation. BB paid to the plaintiff M&A, which is a sexual honorarium. BB does not pay the instant money to the plaintiff on behalf of the non-party company. The instant money is not paid individually between BB and the plaintiff, but is not related to the non-party company. Therefore, it is not related to the non-party company. It was not reflected in the accounting of the non-party company, and there was no need to reflect it.

(7) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that BB paid the instant money to the Plaintiff on behalf of the non-party company as retirement allowance. However, in light of the fact that the non-party company did not account for the instant money, despite the fact that BB did not claim against the non-party company up to the present day, and that the non-party company paid KRW 00 million as retirement allowance and retirement allowance to the Plaintiff on February 16, 2007, as seen above, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.