Key income received by the Plaintiff is earned income in return for providing labor.

Key income received by the plaintiff as a dependent status, shall be earned income.

Article 20 of the former Income Tax Act

2016Guhap70742 global income and revocation of such disposition

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

June 13, 2017

July 11, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On May 20, 2016, the Defendant imposed global income tax of KRW 00,00,000 on the Plaintiff for the year 2010.

The judgment that the disposition is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. AA(hereinafter referred to as “AA”) is a company that operates a pre-permanent learning institute (hereinafter referred to as “instant private teaching institute”) with the trade name “B” in the ○○○○○ City,” and the Plaintiff was on duty as a full-time lecturer at the instant private teaching institute from December 31, 2007 to May 25, 2013.

B. AA withheld the Plaintiff’s tuition fee of KRW 000,000,000 (hereinafter “point income”) paid to the Plaintiff in 2010 as business income and paid the Defendant a return and payment. On May 31, 201, the Plaintiff filed a final return on global income tax base for the global income tax for the period of 2010 to the Defendant.

C. On June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against A for retirement allowance claim (00 district court 00 branch court 0000 unit court 000000). On June 26, 2015, 00 branch court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff provided labor to A and constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act by providing labor to A for the purpose of wages.”

D. AA filed an appeal on July 17, 2015 (Seoul High Court Decision 000Na00000), but the High Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on April 22, 2016, which became final and conclusive around that time (hereinafter referred to as “related civil cases”).

E. Since then, the Defendant’s key income constitutes earned income based on related civil cases:

On May 20, 2016, with respect to the Plaintiff on May 20, 2016, a correction notice of KRW 00,000,000 global income tax for the year 2010 (hereinafter referred to as

'The Disposition of this case' was 'the Disposition of this case'.

F. On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 8, 2016, but the said appeal was made.

The Board decided to dismiss the claim on September 27, 2016.

Facts that there is no dispute with recognition, Gap Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6 (including paper numbers), and Eul Nos. 1, 2, and 3

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The purpose of the Labor Standards Act is to protect workers who provide subordinate labor, while the purpose of the Act is to determine the requirements for taxation for fair imposition of taxes, even if based on the expense rate applied to the estimated tax on business income, a private teaching institute lecturer is classified as business income, business income and earned income are separate systems concerning the protection of tax rates and social insurance, etc., and the Plaintiff paid a large amount of taxes as high-income workers, but did not receive benefits such as protection of social insurance, etc., as an employee, even if the Plaintiff was recognized as a worker under the Labor Standards Act in a related civil case, the instant disposition is unlawful to additionally collect taxes by revising the key income from business income as earned income.

2) Even if you do not do so, BB (hereinafter “B”) is deemed dissolved on December 5, 2016, which is the former operator of the instant driving school, but the representative director of BB established a company called DD (hereinafter “DD”) on November 16, 201, and DD changed its trade name into AA while operating the instant driving school. Since DD continues to operate its business after changing its trade name to A, the counterpart to the instant disposition becomes a withholding agent, the instant disposition made by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

Article 20(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10408, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that “wages, salaries, remuneration, annual allowances, wage, bonus, allowance, and other benefits of a similar nature that are received by providing labor” as earned income. Wage includes not only all economic benefits, regardless of the form or name of payment, which are related to the provision of labor, but also benefits that constitute a working condition closely related to the provision of labor on the premise of labor, regardless of the form or name of payment (see Supreme Court Decisions 2016Du39726, Oct. 27, 2016; 2007Du1941, Oct. 25, 2007).

Considering the above facts, the following circumstances revealed in full view of the evidence and the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, i.e., providing labor, i., providing labor to an employer in a subordinate relationship with an employee in substance, the income of an employee under the Labor Standards Act is deemed to be included in the wage and salary income, ii) the Labor Standards Act aims at protecting employees in a subordinate relationship, while the Income Tax Act aims at establishing objective standards to fairly impose taxes, Article 20(1) of the former Income Tax Act expands the scope of wage and salary income to include wages that constitute working conditions in a close relation with a labor. iii) Considering the fact that the judgment becomes final and conclusive in a related civil case that the Plaintiff provided labor to A in a subordinate relationship with the purpose of wage and constitutes an employee under the Labor Standards Act, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s wage and salary income is the issue income that the Plaintiff received from A

2) Judgment on the second argument

Article 80 (2) of the former Income Tax Act shall apply to the head of a tax office or the director of a regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of

A person who files a final return on the tax base under Articles 70-2, 71, and 74, and who files the final return on tax base under Articles 137, 137-

· Details of withholding income tax pursuant to Article 138, 143-4, 144-2, or 146;

(1) Where there are omissions or errors, and where a withholding agent discontinues his/her business, is missing, etc.,

Tax withholding by a withholding agent who is difficult to collect from a person liable to pay or retires from his/her workplace;

Where it is deemed difficult to carry out (where subparagraph 2 is applicable), a taxation list for the relevant taxable period;

The quasi-laws and tax amount shall be corrected.

In the instant case, the Plaintiff retired from office as a full-time lecturer of the instant private teaching institute from December 31, 2007 to May 25, 2013. The Plaintiff was working for the private teaching institute in 2010 and received benefits equivalent to the pertinent income from AA while working for the private teaching institute in 2010. A shall be deemed as business income in 2010 and reported and paid to the Defendant. The Plaintiff filed a final return on the tax base of global income tax for 2010 to the Defendant on May 31, 201, on the ground that the issue income falls under the global income tax base for 2010, and the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on May 20, 2016.

According to the above facts of recognition, AA has a tax evasion or error on the disputed income on the premise that the substance of the pertinent income is the wage and salary income, and thus, it is difficult to perform withholding tax after the Plaintiff retired from A., and it is reasonable to view that the Defendant can correct and notify the tax base and tax amount of global income tax for the year 2010 for the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 80 (2) 2 of the former Income Tax Act. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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