Suwon District Court 2007Guhap3829 ( May 27, 2008)

Examination Corporation 2007-0026 (2007.05.30)

The propriety of the disposition that excluded the retirement bonus paid without the provision on payment of benefits from deductible expenses

Considering the fact that the employment contract was paid after the termination of the employment contract and the fact that it is difficult to specify the amount even if the payment for the part that performed the duties under the agreement is included, it is reasonable to view the amount as retirement consolation benefits.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

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 imposition disposition of KRW 109,096,480 against the Plaintiff on January 2, 2007 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

The reasoning for the court's reasoning for this case is that even if the plaintiff's assertion was corrected in the first instance, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's 315,33,380 won paid to X as a special bonus is a bonus premised on the existence of labor relations between X and the plaintiff, and that X's retirement allowance is treated as losses upon the plaintiff's payment of annual salary during his/her service period pursuant to Article 39 (2) of the plaintiff's articles of incorporation. Thus, Article 44 (3) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that where there is no provision on retirement benefits in the articles of incorporation, it is not applicable to this case as otherwise alleged by the plaintiff. Article 26 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the amount deemed excessive or unreasonable as prescribed by the Presidential Decree among personnel expenses shall not be added to deductible expenses. Article 43, 44, 44-2, 46, Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and Articles 22 through 25 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, etc.

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