Cho High Court Decision 2014Nu2941 (2014.03)

The amount received under the pretext of the honorarium at the time of retirement shall be subject to the taxation of other income in any name.

A disposition imposing other income tax on the money paid temporarily in the nature of compensation at the time of service shall be justified by deeming it as a kind of honorarium.

Article 21 of the Income Tax Act

2014Guhap3113 global income and revocation of disposition

AAA

Head of Eastern Tax Office

January 23, 2015

February 13, 2015

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 the global income tax on March 5, 2014 against the Plaintiff on March 5, 2014 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 12, 2011, the Plaintiff received KRW 000,000 from NewB, and KRW 00,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff. The head of Busan Regional Tax Office notified the Defendant on April 12, 2013 of the assessment data that the Plaintiff received from NewB, as retirement allowance, the Plaintiff received from the newB, the Plaintiff’s return of global income tax omitted in the course of the investigation related to the illegal entertainment business of the newB. In addition, the head of Busan Regional Tax Office notified the Defendant of the assessment data that the Plaintiff omitted the filing of global income tax.

B. On March 10, 2014, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff on March 10, 201 that the Plaintiff received as retirement allowances from newB constituted other income (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 2, 2014, but was dismissed on September 3, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 and 4 (including various numbers for each type of evidence), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff lent the amount of KRW OO on December 4, 2009, KRW OOOO on June 17, 2010, and KRW OOOOOO on July 20, 2010 to NewB, and KRW OOOO was paid out of KRW OB. Accordingly, the amount that the Plaintiff received as retirement allowances from NewB was paid out of KRW OB. Accordingly, the instant disposition was unlawful under the premise that the Plaintiff was a retirement allowance under the premise that the total amount of KRW OOO was paid out of KRW 10,00,000.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) On June 3, 2011, the Plaintiff drafted a retirement allowance receipt stating that “I will verify that I have received OOO as retirement allowances after receiving OOOO receipt from newB.”

2) On November 27, 2008, the Plaintiff and NewB drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan for consumption (Evidence No. 5) stating that "No. 3581, 2008, "NewB borrowed OOO Won from the Plaintiff on August 15, 2005, and repaid it until January 31, 2009," with the content that "No. 3581, 2008, the newB borrowed OO Won from the Plaintiff on an annual interest rate of 12%."

3) On March 11, 2010, the Plaintiff notified AD, who was the spouse of the newB, of the following content as content certification:

Answer to Contents Certification

1. The author, along with the NB President, had a very strong fry with the NB President. He is not in a way that the price for the skin and snow stockpiled by the author due to the wrong thoughts and actions of this DD.

2. The remainder of the NB president’s credit is no more and more us can not be used as a division of property. The author has to observe the NB president’s content so far, how much the NB president has born, know how much the NB president was fry, and know how much the NB president was fry, and find a way to live in his retirement pay.

3. First, the two-minutes of division of property may not be known, first of all, it was thought that the amount of retirement, which is the first price, should be settled first, and that the amount of retirement, which is the first price, should be settled first, but now, the new BB president should live at this age, and if the corporation is organized, the "I would first arrange all the properties from the employee's retirement pay," and the corporation would have received a notarial deed from the employee by requesting to do so even if I want to receive it.

4. The division of division of a division of a division of a college shall be carried out in a way that the two divisions are well known later, and first, they shall be able to receive only the retirement allowances of the low-income bracket, so that they can receive well, prior to the division of the division of the division of the body of EDC, they shall be able to observe the promise with the thickness of the new president.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Nos. 2, 5, and 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the following circumstances revealed by the evidence as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff received the OOO as retirement allowance from the newB. Thus, the instant disposition that imposes the global income tax on both the Plaintiff and the other income is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is groundless.

① On May 12, 2011, the Plaintiff drafted a receipt stating that the Plaintiff received the OOOO on May 12, 201, and the OOOOO on June 3, 201, and that the Plaintiff received the OOO receipt as retirement allowance on June 3, 2011.

② On November 27, 2008, the Plaintiff had to receive a considerable amount of retirement allowances from the newB, and the newB appears to have prepared a notarial deed on money loan contracts to secure retirement allowance claims by concerns over the occurrence of disputes regarding division of property in the course of divorce with the DaD, the spouse. Considering that the amount of claims on a notarial deed is an OOO, the Plaintiff’s amount of claims on the notarial deed is too much larger than that of the OOO members paid from the newB as retirement allowances.

③ The Plaintiff asserts that a sum of the OB Won was leased to NewB, and received reimbursement. According to the Plaintiff’s financial transaction, the Plaintiff collected a loan from OB on December 3, 2009, and deposited OB won on June 17, 2010, and deposited OB won on June 18, 2010, and deposited OB won on July 20, 2010. However, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to obtain a new OB’s belief that a loan was made from 2000,000 won, and that the Plaintiff received a loan from OB to 201,000,000 won during the same month without obtaining a certificate of loan from 20,000,000 won during the same month. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that it was difficult to obtain a new OB’s belief that it was made before and after 201,000 won during a loan from 20,000 won.

3. Conclusion

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