The key amount received from the parent company by the executives and employees of the subsidiary company providing services related to the sale of the subsidiary company

The claimant, as an officer or employee of the subsidiary, provides the issues related to the sales of the subsidiary under the parent company's control and subordinate relationship under the command of the actual operator of the subsidiary, and it is reasonable to view the issues received from the parent company as earned income.

Article 20 of the Income Tax Act

Article 21 of the Income Tax Act

2012Guhap13963 global income and revocation of disposition

LAA

port of origin

January 15, 2014

February 19, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

"The defendant's disposition of imposition of OOOO on August 1, 201 by the plaintiff against the plaintiff on August 1, 201 is revoked (the " August 4, 2011 stated in the written complaint seems to be a clerical error in the written complaint)", and the reasons therefor.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. BB (hereinafter referred to as “B”) was established around May 1987 and operated a virtual and electronic product sales business,” and “BB (BB) was established on January 26, 2005 with the primary business purpose of acquiring, managing, and disposing of various assets, including securities. Around April 2005, BB acquired 100% of the shares of BB (hereinafter referred to as “CCB”), a corporation, CHB Holdings (hereinafter referred to as “CCB”), a corporation, owns 100% of the shares of BB Holdings, and DoD (hereinafter referred to as “DB”), a Luxembourg corporation, owns 100% of the shares of BB Holdings, and the Plaintiff was actually working for 20% of the shares of BB Holdings (hereinafter referred to as “D20% of the shares of 30% of the shares of 30% of the investment management company, and subsequently, 30% of the shares of 30% of the 250% of the shares of CB Holdings.

D. At around June 2007, EE decided to sell BB stocks held by CCC Holdings, and around that time, selected GG Hong Kong as a manager of stock sales, and requested Chapter II, who is the head of this HH, the head of the financial team, the Plaintiff, and the head of the accounting team, who is the head of the headquarters of BB, to assist the work of the GG Hong Kong. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, this HH, and Chapter II, sent data, such as past financial analysis, future financial presumption, and company introduction to the GG Hong Kong, and performed potential buyers and contacts.

E. On January 30, 2008, CCC Holdings sold 100% of the shares BB to PPB Holdings Co., Ltd., and paid OBB to the Plaintiff on February 15, 2008. Thereafter, the Plaintiff set aside BB on February 29, 2008, and (f) applied 80% of the necessary expenses for the instant income as “other income,” and the Plaintiff reported and paid the global income tax in 2008 by applying 80% of the necessary expenses for the instant income to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, on August 1, 2011, the Defendant deemed the “the instant income” to be “the global income tax, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification (hereinafter “instant disposition”). However, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition on February 29, 2008, and the Plaintiff was subject to the instant decision on dismissal on July 21, 201.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 7 evidence, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

“The Plaintiff did not receive the instant income in return for providing labor to BB, but provided services temporarily to EE without an employment relationship, and received the instant income. Therefore, the instant disposition that deemed the instant income as “other income” is unlawful, and (b) related statutes.

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) The Plaintiff, from around 197 to 2000, was in charge of selling the shares of the said company to K while serving as the head of the funding team at the J-based Company. From around 2000 to around 2002, the Plaintiff served as the head of the management support team of the J-based LL Business Corporation. From around 2002 to around 2005, the Plaintiff was in charge of financial consulting affairs of the LL business partnership company. From around 2005, the Plaintiff worked as a director in charge of financial affairs (CFO) at MM Entertainment.

2) BB’s financial team was affiliated with the accounting team and was affiliated with the re-central headquarters. However, the Chapter II, the head of the accounting team, was employed in BB on May 1, 2004 and April 6, 2005 by Hah, who is the head of the re-central headquarters, was employed in BB on April 6, 2005, and the Plaintiff was employed in BB on November 1, 2005, and the Plaintiff, HH, and Chapter II retired at the same time on February 29, 2008.

3) The Plaintiff was the head of the BB’s fund team in charge of fund management, fund planning, real estate management, etc., and was present at the shareholders’ meeting or the board of directors to report it to shareholders and executive officers, and submitted the EE every month.

4) Upon the EE request of the Plaintiff, HH and Chapter II: (a) gathered inside company such as the above Lart, etc. to support the work of the GG Hong Kong; (b) made data such as BB’s sales, cash flow analysis, future financial presumption (from 2006 to 2011) and delivered them to the GG Hong Kong; and (c) based on this, the GG Hong Kong drafted investment proposal, etc.

5) From July 16, 2007 to September 14, 2007, Plaintiff, HH, and Chapter II leased Nos. 812, OOO-dong 159, OOO-dong 159, and worked to assist GG Hong Kong in its work.

6) After selling, CCC Holdings paid bonuses, etc. to the executives and employees of BB as listed in BB’s Schedule ‘The following:

See Table 5 see Court Decision 5

7) The Plaintiff has received benefits equivalent to the annual amount of OOO from BB.

[Reasons for Recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 7, 9, 11, 13 through 17, 21, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Article 20 (1) 1 (a) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9270 of Dec. 26, 2008) provides that "the salary, salary, remuneration, remuneration, wage, bonus, bonus, allowance and other benefits of a similar nature that are received from a foreigner abroad or a foreign corporation" as Class B earned income. Meanwhile, Article 20 (1) of the Income Tax Act provides that "the wage and salary income of this case shall include not only all economic benefits which are related to the provision of labor in nature, regardless of the form or name of payment, but also all economic benefits which are related to the provision of labor, regardless of the form or name of payment, but also 207Du1934, Dec. 26, 2008)", and Article 20 (1) 1 (a) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9270 of Dec. 26, 200) provides the plaintiff with a direct or indirect relation between BB's management as a parent company of the income of this case and CB.

A) On November 1, 2005, after CCC Holdings recommended the management right of BB BB, the Plaintiff entered BB upon the recommendation of EH, the head of EW headquarters. The BB appears to have employed the Plaintiff in consideration of the Plaintiff’s past work experience in selling the shares of the company outside the company, and it appears that CCC Holdings directly or indirectly affected the Plaintiff’s employment.

B) EE decided to sell BB stocks held by CCC Holdings and selected BB as a manager of the sale of stocks. GG Hong Kong in charge of the sale of stocks requires data such as BB’s sales, cash flow analysis, future financial presumption, etc. In order to make these data, BB’s internal financial information is required (at that time BB was a non-corporate and there was little financial information that it was outside, and it is recognized that GG Hong Kong sent a note requesting B B to provide data on circulation channels from 2001 to 203). Accordingly, EE could not be deemed to have arbitrarily provided BB’s internal financial information, regardless of whether the Plaintiff, H and II’s internal financial support could not be deemed to have been used to support BB’s sales, cash flow analysis, and future financial presumption. Accordingly, Plaintiff 1, H and II’s internal financial support could not be deemed to have provided the Plaintiff’s internal financial support to the Plaintiff’s non-resident and the Plaintiff’s non-party 2’s internal financial support.

(C) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff performed his duties independently regardless of BB by leasing the hotel guest room at his own expense and using personal e-mail instead of using BB company’s e-mail. As seen earlier, although the Plaintiff, HH, and II leased the hotel guest room, it is not sufficient to recognize that the hotel receipt (Evidence A9) was in fact responsible for the hotel guest room cost, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is no other evidence. Furthermore, when the e-mail (Evidence A6), the Plaintiff, HH, and Chapter II exchanged with the person in charge of GG Hong Kong used the personal e-mail account (OO △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△). However, the company’s e-mail account (OO) was also used, and the Plaintiff and the person in charge of the GG Hong Kong’s e-mail account (OO △△△△△△△△△△△△).D.

Considering that the Plaintiff’s assertion is called “NB”, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff, HB, and Chapter II independently performed its duties regardless of BB. Rather, it is difficult to readily or externally know that the sale was conducted as BB. Therefore, the Plaintiff, HH, and Chapter II leased their hotel rooms to maintain confidentiality in relation to other employees of BB, and only seem to use personal e-mail.” The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff provided its services to EE in an independent position and received the instant income. However, the Plaintiff continued to work as an employee of BB, a subsidiary of EE, without retirement from BB, and continued to receive the instant income. On the other hand, GG Hong Kong prepared a contract on delegation of sales duties between EE and EB, while it appears that the Plaintiff unilaterally received the Plaintiff’s successful decision on the contract price and its independent position in light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not prepare any contract on the provision of services to EE and EB, and that it was difficult to view that the Plaintiff unilaterally received the payment of the instant income from the Plaintiff.

F) Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 24, PN, the representative director of BB, around April 2005, entered into an agreement with EE to sell all BB shares including one’s BB shares and the minority shareholders’ shares in BB. In the process of negotiations, EE received 13.7% of D’s shares free of charge in the process of negotiations and entered into an agreement with EE to receive 13.7% of D’s shares in the future when EE re-sale BB. In the process, EE would receive an additional OOO transfer when it re-sales BB, and during that process, it was indicted for the crime of breach of trust against BB and minority shareholders. According to the above facts charged, PN appears to have been closely interested in the process of selling BB shares in PBB Holdings, and thus, it appears that PN will have engaged in the representative director, and therefore, the Plaintiff has a common interest and indirect interest in NB’s sales order.

3. Conclusion

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