Copied from Nevo In light of the above, the court instructed the appellants to return the following sums to the Association's liquidation fund:
(-) Yosef was obligated to return to the association the sum of NIS 1,850,618. The court ruled that the total gross payments he received Joseph Manve Simcha stood at NIS 2,234,618. Out of this amount, a director's salary of NIS 48,000 per year for 8 years, amounting to NIS 384,000, was recognized as a legitimate sum.
(-) Chaim Tukchinsky, Yosef's son, is appellant No. 2 Other Municipality Requests 38871-02-25 (Hereinafter: Life) was obligated to return to the association a total of NIS 471,742. The court ruled that in the years 2014-2016, during which he served as a director of Neve Simcha, he received a cumulative sum of NIS 615,742. Out of this amount, a director's salary of NIS 48,000 per year for three years was recognized, amounting to NIS 144,000. The court did not obligate Haim to return the sums he earned during the years in which he did not serve as a board member or trustee.
(-) Adv. Shachor was obligated to return to the association the sum of NIS 1,353,395. The court ruled that the total gross payments he received as salary from Neve Simcha (including severance pay) was NIS 1,457,308. Out of this amount, a salary of NIS 48,000 per year for 7 years (as an endowment trustee and director in Neve Simcha) was recognized, amounting to NIS 336,000. In addition, the court ordered Adv. Shachor to return NIS 232,087 that he received for the Lemel complex transaction.
With respect to each of the appellants, it was held that The restitution amounts should not include the payments that were not actually transferred to the appellants, such as "employer's cost" (payments to income tax, VAT, National Insurance, etc.), since these are not funds that the board member "received".
- This is what the two appeals before us revolve around.
00
0 A common thread in all the appeals is the claim that the trial court erred in "lifting the veil" and ruled that the Neve Simcha company, which is a private and independent company, is in fact part of the association's assets. According to the appellants, these are two separate legal entities, with Neve Simcha being the beneficiary of the Wolf Endowment, but not part of the association.