(a) Obligation to withhold income tax of a foreign corporation which has no branch or business office in Korea;

(b) Whether the owner is liable to withhold income tax from the person who paid the source income by auctioning the securities

B. Under the provisions of Article 540 (2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the voluntary auction of securities, the successful bidder shall pay the total amount of the successful bid price to the head of the office by the date of auction or the date of payment separately determined, and the amount of the successful bid price cannot be paid after deducting the equivalent amount from the successful bid price under the Income Tax Act, so the successful bidder has no intention to withhold the income tax on the owner of the object of auction. If the successful bidder does not withhold it from the domestic affairs and pay the equivalent amount as the auction price, or receives the first priority from the office of month, the auction price to return to the secured party is reduced and the income tax which comes due after the establishment of the security right is established is no more than the secured bond, and thus it shall not be permitted. Accordingly, the same shall apply to the case where the successful bid price is paid by the method of offsetting.

2. The plaintiff argues that, as for a foreign corporation which has no branch or business office in Korea as shown in the plaintiff corporation, taxation right, which is part of the governing power in Korea, cannot be imposed. Second, in the interpretation of the current Income Tax Act, the plaintiff's foreign corporation like the plaintiff cannot be deemed as included in the income tax withholding agent. Third, in the auction procedure, since the person who pays the price to the owner of the object of auction is not the successful bidder, but the court or the office of the auction is considered as the withholding agent, the successful bidder cannot be deemed as the withholding agent, regardless of the fact that the court or the office of the auction executive is considered as the withholding agent. Further, the successful bidder cannot pay only the remainder which is calculated by deducting the total amount of the successful bid price and the income tax amount from the successful bidder cannot be paid to the executive agency, so it is impossible to impose the withholding duty on the plaintiff as the successful bidder

3. As to the plaintiff's first argument, since the right to impose taxes, which is a part of the right to impose taxes on all citizens and all acts within the territory of the Republic of Korea, a foreign corporation cannot impose taxes on acts outside the territory of the Republic of Korea. However, even a foreign corporation may impose taxes on the Korean government if it commits an act subject to taxation within the territory of the Republic of Korea, and as seen earlier, the plaintiff corporation paid a successful bid price corresponding to domestic source income for the acquisition of stocks within the territory of the Republic of Korea. As such, if the act is subject to taxation under the current tax law of the Republic of Korea, it may be imposed. Accordingly, the plaintiff'

In addition, with respect to the principal place of tax payment, Article 1 (2) of the Income Tax Act provides that the principal place of tax payment includes residents (Article 1 (1) 1), non-residents (Article 1 (2) of the Income Tax Act), domestic corporations with the principal place of tax or principal office in Korea (Article 3) and other withholding agents (Article 178 (1) of the Income Tax Act (Article 178 (1) of the Income Tax Act). Article 178 (1) of the same Act provides that the person who pays domestic source income to non-resident who has no place of business in Korea is liable to withhold income tax (Article 10 (1) of the Income Tax Act), and Article 10 (2) of the Income Tax Act provides that if a withholding agent under subparagraph 4 of Article 178 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is a non-resident (Article 178 (2) 2), a domestic corporation's domestic place of tax payment shall be excluded from the place of tax payment under Article 28 (1) 3) of the Income Tax Act.

다음 셋째 주장에 관하여 보건대, 채권자의 신청에 의하여 법원이나 집달관이 담보권의 실행을 위한 경매를 실시하는 경우 법원이나 집달관은 경매실시기관에 불과할 뿐, 양도인이나 양수인의 지위에 있다 할 수 없고 경매목적물의 소유자가 양도인, 경락인이 양수인으로서 대금을 지급하는 자에 각 해당한다 할 것이므로, 이 사건에 있어서 비거주자인 위 윤ㅇㅇ에 대하여 국내원천소득금액인 위 주식양도대금을 지급하는 자는 집달관이 아니라 원고라 할 것이니, 원고가 아닌 집달관이 국내원천소득금액을 지급한 자로 원천징수의무자에 해당한다는 원고의 주장은 이유없다 할 것이나, 한편 유가증권의 임의 경매에도 준용되는 민사소송법 제540조 제2항은 경매물의 인도는 대금과 상환하여야 한다 , 제3항은 최고가 경매인이 경매조건에 정한 지급기일에 대금의 지급과 물건의 인도를 해태한 때에는 재경매하여야 한다. 지급기일을 정하지 아니한 경우에 경매기일의 종료 전에 대금의 지급과 물건의 인도청구를 해태한 때에도 같다 고 규정하고 있어 경락인은 경락대금 전액을 경매기일이나 별도로 정한 대금지급기일까지 집달관에게 지급하여야 하고, 소득세법상 원천징수의무가 있다 하여 그 금액만큼을 경락대금에서 공제하고 지급할 수 없으므로 원고와 같은 경매취득자는 경매목적물 소유자에 대한 소득세를 원천징수할 방도가 없으며, 가사 이를 원천징수하여 그 금액만큼을 경매대금으로 지급치 아니한다거나 또는 집달관으로부터 그 금액을 우선 교부받는다면 이는 담보권자에게 돌아갈 경매대금이 그만큼 감소하고 담보물권이 설정된 뒤에 납기가 도래한 소득세를 그 담보채권보다 우선하여 징수하는 셈이 되어 허용될 수 없다 할 것이니, 결국 원고와 같이유가증권을 경락취득함으로써 그 소유자에게 국내원천소득금액을 지급한 자에게는 원천징수의무가 없다고 보아야 할 것이고, 그러한 이치는 이 사건에 있어서와 같이 상계의 방법에 의하여 경락대금을 납입하는 경우에도 동일하다고 할 것인 즉, 이 점을 지적하는 원고의 주장은 이유있다.

4. 그렇다면, 원고에게 위 윤ㅇㅇ에 대한 소득세를 원천징수할 의무가 있음을 전제로 한 이 사건 과세처분은 위법하다 할 것이므로 그 취소를 구하는 원고의 청구는 이유있어 인용하고 소송비용은 패소자인 피고의 부담으로 하여 주문과 같이 판결한다.