early 201st century 4867 (20 July 2012)

(1) The Plaintiff’s employment income constitutes earned income in relation to a certain correlation or economic rationality with the Plaintiff’s employment provided to a corporation.

The instant income is paid to the Plaintiff by the parent company directly or indirectly affecting the management and the performance of the business of the BB E, and it is reasonable to deem that there is a quid pro quo relationship between the Plaintiff and the labor provided to BB E, and thus, the instant income falls under the earned income under Article 20(1) of the Income Tax Act.

2012Guhap34877 global income and revocation of disposition

IsaA

The Director of Gangnam District Office

March 26, 2013

May 23, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of lawsuit.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 000,000 against the Plaintiff on August 4, 2011 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) BBE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BE”) is established around May 1987 and engages in sales business of home appliances and electronic products.

B. On January 26, 2005, BBE Holdings was established mainly with the acquisition, management, and disposal of all kinds of assets including securities, etc., and around April 2005, BBE acquired 100% of the stocks of 2000 won. Meanwhile, as the Netherlands, CCCCH Holdings Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CCS”) held 100% of the stocks of BBE Holdings, and Luxembourg Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DD”), which is Luxembourg, owns 100% of the stocks of 100, and Luxembourg Co., Ltd., which is a Luxembourg, owns 100% of the stocks of 10% of 10% of the stocks of 100,000 investment asset management company, and (hereinafter “EE”), the Plaintiff was working for 205% of the stocks of 205, 200, 2005, 2005, 205, 2005, 2005, 2005,

D. EE, around June 2007, intended to sell CBE stocks owned byCC, and around that time, requested H Hong Kong to select a manager in charge of stock sale, and requested HG to assist H Hong Kong’s operations to FF, the team leader of the Plaintiff’s financial team, the head of the financial management headquarters of BBE, and HG, the head of the accounting team. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, the largest FF, and GG transferred data, such as past financial analysis, future financial estimates, and company introduction, to H Hong Kong, and conducted contact with the potential purchasers.

E. On January 30, 2008,CC Holdings sold 100% of the BBE shares to BBE Holdings Co., Ltd., and paid 000 won to the Plaintiff on February 15, 2008 (hereinafter “instant income”). Thereafter, the Plaintiff set aside BBE on February 29, 2008.

F. The Plaintiff classified the instant income as “other income” and reported and paid KRW 420,884,061 as global income tax in 2008 by applying 80% of the necessary expenses for the instant income. On August 4, 2011, the Defendant deemed the instant income as “ earned income” and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 as global income tax in 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

G. On October 24, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 24, 201, and was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on July 20, 2012.

[Based on Recognition] Class A 2, Category B 7, and Category 1, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not receive the instant income in return for the provision of labor to BB E, but rather provided services temporarily to EE regardless of employment, and received the instant income. Therefore, the instant disposition that deemed the instant income as “other income” is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Facts of recognition

1) The Plaintiff was in charge of corporate financial affairs in the IIII Bank from around 1985 to 1997, and was in charge of selling the shares of the said company to K while working as the head of international financial affairs in the JJ Co., Ltd. from around 1997 to 2000, and was in charge of selling the said company's shares to K from around 2001 to from 2003.

2) The re-ordination headquarters of BBE in which the Plaintiff served as the head of the headquarters has an accounting team and a fund team, and the most FG, which is the head of the accounting team (director) of the Council, was employed on May 1, 2004 and the head of the funding team (director) on November 1, 2005, were employed in the Haart, and the Plaintiff retired on February 29, 2008 as the Plaintiff.

3) The Plaintiff, as the head of the re-chief, controlled the preparation of financial statements and the execution of funds, and attended the shareholders’ meeting or the board of directors, reported them to shareholders and executive officers, and submitted monthly sets to E.

4) Upon request of the EE to assist the work of H Hong Kong, the Plaintiff, the lowestF, and LG made available data such as BBE sales, cash flow analysis, and future financial estimates (from 2006 to 2011), and HH Hong Kong entered into an investment proposal, etc. based thereon.

5) From July 16, 2007 to September 14, 2007, the Plaintiff, and the LG leased Nos. 000 of the Seoul Gangnam-gu OOdong 00 to assist the work of OO Hong Kong.

6)CC Holdings paid bonuses, etc. to executives and employees of BBE after sale as listed in the following table.

(The following table omitted):

7) The Plaintiff has received benefits of KRW 000 per annum from BBE.

[Based on recognition] The descriptions of Gap 3 through 7, 9, 11, and 13 through 17, 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, tax, wage, bonus, allowance, and other benefits of a similar nature that are received due to the provision of labor as Class A earned income, and subparagraph 2 (b) provides that "the salary that is received from a foreigner or a foreign corporation in a foreign country" as Class B earned income. Meanwhile, the earned income under Article 20 (1) of the Income Tax Act includes not only all economic benefits which are related to the provision of labor by nature, regardless of the form or name of payment, but also benefits which constitute closely working conditions related to the provision of labor on the premise of the provision of labor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 71Nu222, Apr. 28, 197; 2007Du1394, Oct. 25, 2007).

2) In full view of the following circumstances that can be seen in light of the overall purport of the arguments as to the instant case’s facts, it is reasonable to view that the instant income was paid to the Plaintiff by OOO Holdings, a foreign corporation, which directly or indirectly affects BBE’s management and performance of duties, as the parent company of BBE, and that there was a quid pro quo relationship or an economic rationality with the Plaintiff’s labor provided to BBE. Therefore, the instant income constitutes an earned income under Article 20(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

A) On April 6, 2005, immediately after the acquisition of the management right ofCC Holdings BB, the Plaintiff was employed as an executive officer (re-chief) in the OOE on April 6, 2005, and BBE appears to have employed the Plaintiff in consideration of the Plaintiff’s past work experience in JJ Stock Companies, LLL companies, and other work experience in selling the shares of the company to the outside, and it appears that the CC Holdings directly or indirectly affected the Plaintiff’s employment.

(B) EE is required to sell H Hong Kong as a manager in charge of stock sales, to select H Hong Kong, and HH Hong Kong in charge of sales, to prepare investment proposal, etc., to require data such as BBE sales, cash flow analysis, and financial estimates, and to create these data, it is necessary to provide inside financial information (at that time BB E is an emergency corporation, and there was little financial information that is externally published). E provides BBE on the side of BBE with data such as BBE sales, cash flow analysis, and future financial estimates to assist the above sales, but it is not possible to see that BBE provided the Plaintiff, the largestF, and GGG, regardless of whether the Plaintiff, and the lowestG, and its employees and employees, to use the information, and to use the Plaintiff’s internal financial information, such as the Plaintiff’s internal financial information, and to use the Plaintiff’s internal financial information, regardless of whether the Plaintiff, and its employees and employees.

"다) 원고는 자신의 비용을 들여 호텔 객실을 임차하여 위 업무를 수행하였고，BB마트 회사 이메일을 사용하지 않고 개인 이메일을 사용하는 등 BB마트와 무관하게 독립적으로 업무를 수행하였다고 주장한다. 원고， 최FF， 류GG이 호탤 객실을 임차하였음은 앞서 본 바와 같으나 갑 제9호증의 기재만으로는 이들이 호텔 객설 비용을 실제로 부담하였다고 인정하기 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다. 또한， 류GG이 HH홍콩의 담당자와 주고받은 이메일(갑 제6호증)을 보면 원고， 최FF， 류GG 이 주로 개인 이메일 계정(OOO)을 사용하기 는 하였으나， 회사 이매일 계정(OOOO)을 사용하 기도 한 점， HH홍콩의 담당자가 최FF， 류GG을 '최부장님'， '류부장님'이라 고 지칭하고 있는 점 등에 비추어 원고 주장의 위 사정만으로 원고，최FF，류GG이 BB마트와 무관하게 독립적으로 업무를 수행하였다고 보기는 어렵다. 오히려 BB마트로서는 매각이 추진되고 있다는 사실이 대내적으로나 대외적으로 알려져서는 안되므 로， 원고， 최FF， 류GG은 BB마트의 다른 직원들과의 관계에서 비밀을 유지하면서 업무를 수행하기 위하여 호텔 객실을 임차하여 업무를 수행하고，개인 이메일을 사용한 것으로 보일 뿐이다.", 라) 원고는 독립적인 지위에서 EE에 용역을 제공하고 이 사건 소득을 받았다고 주장하나，원고는 당시 EE의 종속회사인 BB마트의 임원으로서 BB마트에서 퇴사하지 않고 계속 근무하고 있었던 점， HH홍콩은 EE와 사이에 매각 업무 위임에 관한 계약서를 작성하였는데，원고는 EE와 이러한 계약서를 작성하지 않았을 뿐만 아니라 계약금액， 지급시기에 관한 합의도 전혀 없었던 것으로 보이고，CCCC홀딩스로부터 일방적으로 책정된 이 사건 소득을 받은 점， 독립적인 지위에서 자신의 전문성을 이용하여 인적용역을 제공하는 경우 일반적으로 용역 제공에 대한 대가는 당사자 사이의 조율과 협상을 통하여 결정되는 점 등에 비추어 보면， 원고가 '독립적인 지위'에서 EE에 용역을 제공하였다고 볼 수 없다.

e)CC Holdings made a special bonus of KRW 000 won by acquiring 100% of the BBE equity in April 4, 2005 and selling it to KRW 000 on January 30, 2008) to the executives and employees of BBE. In particular, the executives and employees of BBE, including the representative director of BBE, paid a special bonus of KRW 20 billion in total, and reported it as earned income.CC Holdings made efforts to improve BBE’s business performance, and thereby made efforts to pay a large amount of special bonus from the compensation level for the success in BBE sales. The Plaintiff appears to have received the Plaintiff’s income in this case in light of the payment subject, amount, and timing of BBE’s sales, and the Plaintiff did not appear to have made a special bonus of KRW 20 billion in total to the officers and employees of BBE, and the Plaintiff did not appear to have made a special bonus to the said executives and employees of the Hong Kong.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.