2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims shall be dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

가. 원고 AA만은 2002. 7. 12. 윤CC과 함께 □□동, △△동에서 건물 신축 분양사업을 시행하기로 하고 1995. 11.경 설립된 휴면법인인 주식회사 ♤♤기업을 인수한 다음 상호를 주식회사 ☆☆☆씨(이하, '소외 회사'라고 한다)로 바꾸고 2002. 7. 13. 윤CC으로 하여금 소외 회사의 대표이사로 취임하게 한 후 원고 김BB 등의 자금을 끌어 들여 건물 신축 분양업을 개시하였다.

나. ◇◇지방국세청장은 2006. 4.경 소외 회사에 대한 세무조사결과 소외 회사가 2004년도 귀속 소득금액에서 3,783,392,137원(=원고 AA만 1,616,696,068원 + 원고 김BB 2,166,696,068원, 이하, '이 사건 소득금액'이라고 한다)을 부당하게 사외유출한 것으로 보고 ★★세무서장에게 위 사실을 과세자료로 통보하였고, ★★세무서장은 이를 소외 회사의 실질적인 대표이사인 원고들에게 상여로 소득처분하고 소외 회사에 대하여 소득금액변통통지를 하였다.

다. 소외 회사는 위 소득금액변동통지서를 송달받은 후인 2006. 5. 10. ★★세무서장 에게 이 사건 소득금액에 대한 원천징수이행상황(수정)신고서를 제출하였으나 소득처 분으로 인하여 추가로 납부할 갑종근로소득세를 납부하지 아니하였고, 이에 ★★세무 서장은 2006. 7. 1. 소외 회사에게 원천징수할 갑종근로소득세를 납부고지하였다.

라. ★★세무서장은 그 후 소외 회사의 국세체납액에 대한 체납처분결과 소외 회사의 소재지가 불명하고 압류한 주식회사 ▽▽▽▽신탁에대한 채권으로는 체납액에 충당할 수 없다고 보아 소외 회사의 사업자등록을 직권말소하고 2007. 5. 31. 이 사건 소득금액에 대한 갑종근로소득세 고지금액에 관하여 국세징수법 제86조 제1항 제4호에 의하여 결손처분을 하였고, 2007. 11. 7. 소외 회사에 대한 위 갑종근로소득세 납부고지를 취소하였다.

E. Meanwhile, upon filing a revised return on global income tax on May 31, 2006, Plaintiff A only deducted KRW 535,634,05 of the income amount in the instant case as the already paid tax amount, while Plaintiff A also deducted KRW 751,679,199 of the Class A earned income tax on the said income amount as the already paid tax amount upon filing a revised return on global income tax on the same day.

바. 그런데 ◇◇지방국세청장은 2007.경 실시된 ★★세무서에 대한 정기업무감사에서 '원천징수의무자인 소외 회사에게 고지한 원천징수세액을 결손처분한 경우 동 세액을 소득귀속자인 원고들의 기납부세액으로 공제할 수 없다'는 내용을 지적하였고, ★★ 세무서장은 2007. 10. 25. 피고들에게 위 사실을 과세자료로 통보하였다.

G. On January 3, 2008, under the premise of non-deduction of the above withholding tax, the head of the above tax office: (i) on January 3, 2008, the head of the above tax office imposed and notified the Plaintiff AB of KRW 735,90,50,500 (including the tax return and the penalty tax due due due due diligence) and KRW 73,590,050,050, respectively; (ii) on March 2, 2008, the head of the above tax office imposed and notified the Plaintiff KimB of KRW 88,731,670, global income tax (including the tax return and the penalty tax due due diligence); and (iii) on the resident tax of KRW 88,731,673,160, global income tax (including the disposition of imposition of global income tax in total; and (iv) the disposition of imposition of global income tax in total.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute; statements in Gap evidence 1-1 through 4, 2-1 through 3, and Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 2-1, 3-1, 2, and 3-1, 2, and 4 through 8; purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Summary of the grounds for the plaintiffs' claims

A. As long as the non-party company reported the performance of withholding tax on the income amount of this case, it did not extinguish the obligation to pay the source tax of the non-party company. However, the non-party company collected the source tax at the time of paying the above income amount to the plaintiffs. Thus, even if the non-party company did not pay it to the tax office, the plaintiffs can deduct the amount equivalent to the above withholding tax

B. Although the location of the non-party company is clear and has the ability to pay the delinquent tax, it is unlawful that the defendant made a disposition of deficits against the non-party company even though it did not meet the requirements under Article 86(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, it is improper to deduct the amount of the above withholding

3. Related Acts and subordinate statutes.

The entry of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes is the same.

4. We examine whether the part concerning the revocation of the resident tax disposition of this case, among the lawsuit of this case, is legitimate ex officio.

According to Article 177-4 (1), (2) and (5) of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8864 of Feb. 29, 2008), resident tax to be imposed is a local tax to be paid to the head of a Si/Gun (the head of a Gu in the case of the Special Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City; hereinafter the same shall apply) having jurisdiction over the place of payment of income tax, and where the head of a tax office collects income tax by the method of imposition of assessment in accordance with the Framework Act on National Taxes or the Income Tax Act, even if the resident tax to be imposed is imposed and notified at the same time, it shall be deemed that the head of the relevant Si/Gun imposed and notified the head of the relevant Si/Gun. Thus, the defendant, who seeks cancellation of the disposition of imposition of resident tax of this case, shall be the head of △△△△ Special Metropolitan City, which is the head of the relevant Si/Gun having jurisdiction over the place of payment of income tax of this case, and thus, the head of the relevant Si/Gun shall return the relevant income tax, etc.

5. Detailedness of the global income in the case of this case and whether the dispositions are unlawful.

A. The effect of determining the tax liability for the amount of income in the instant case

국세기본법 제21조 제2항은 원천징수하는 소득세는 소득금액을 지급하는 때에 그 납세의무가 성립한다고 규정하고, 제22조 제2항은 원천징수하는 소득세는 납세의무가 성립하는 때에 특별한 절차 없이 그 세액이 확정된다고 규정하고 있어 원천징수하는 소득세는 소득금액을 지급하는 때에 그 납세의무가 성립함과 동시에 확정되므로, 원천 징수의무자에 대한 과세관청의 납세고지는 과세처분이 아니라 이미 확정된 조세에 대한 징수처분에 해당한다(대법원 1988. 11. 8. 선고 85다카1548 판결 참조). 따라서 ★★세무서장이 소외 회사에 대한 납부고지를 취소하였다고 하더라도 이 사건 소득금액에 대한 원천징수세액 확정의 효력에는 영향이 없다고 할 것이다.

B. Whether the plaintiffs can deduct the tax amount from the already paid tax amount

Even if Class A earned income is a source tax to be collected, if the income which is to be reported by adding it to the tax base for global income under the Income Tax Act was omitted, it may be imposed on the income earner as global income tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 79Nu347, Sept. 22, 1981). However, after the source tax has been fixed by a withholding agent, a withholding agent may not impose it on the person liable for tax payment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Nu288, Oct. 13, 1981). Accordingly, depending on whether the non-party company collected the source tax for the instant income from the Plaintiffs, whether the Plaintiffs could deduct the aforementioned withholding tax from the global income tax for the year 2004.

Therefore, in light of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the non-party company did not have any fixed amount of source tax on the income amount of this case from the plaintiffs in light of the following facts and the evidence of No. 2, No. 4, 3, 11, 17-1 through 3, 20-1, 20, 21, and 22 of the evidence No. 17-1 through 3, 20, and 22 of the evidence No. 20, it is reasonable to view that the non-party company did not have any fixed amount of source tax on the income amount of this case. Contrary thereto, the testimony of No. 4, No. 18, and witness KimD, and CC is not believed, and each testimony of No. 3 and No. 10 is insufficient to reverse the recognition.

1) On July 2002, Plaintiff A0 and PapCC established the non-party company, and began the construction of a new building by raising Plaintiff KimB and sulfurE’s funds. The non-party company’s business type was the △△△ building located in △△△△-dong, △△△-dong (hereinafter “△△△-dong building”), and △△-dong, 1267 located in △△-dong, △△△-dong, △△△-dong (hereinafter “△-dong officetel”).

2) The building of △△-dong was built on December 2002 and completed around May 2004 after the total estimated sale price was 28 billion won, and the officetel of △-dong started on July 2003 and completed around June 2005 after the total estimated sale price was 65 billion won.

3) On the corporate register of the non-party company, the FF, headG, and PH were registered as the representative director. However, in fact, the plaintiffs were engaged in all the affairs related to the △dong Building, and the affairs related to the △dong Officetel. The actual representative of the non-party company was the plaintiffs and leCC from July 2002 to July 2004, and the leCC was around July 2004.

4) △△동 빌딩과 관련한 손익분배비율은 원고들, 윤CC(황EE 분 포함)이 각 60%(원고들 각자 30%씩), 40%였는데, 원고 김BB은 △△동 빌딩 분양업무가 종결되자 소외 회사 대표이사직에서 사임하였다.

5) 소외 회사는 2004. 6. 내지 7.경 △△동 빌딩 분양이 마무리되어 약 91억 원의 소득이 발생하자 주주총회 결의 등 적법한 절차 없이 원고들에게 각 1,616,696,068원, 윤CC에게 766,607,864원, 황EE에게 20억 원을 각 배당하고, 이후 위 각 금액의 합계 60억 원( =1,616,696,068원 + 1,616,696,068원 + 766,607,864원 + 20억 원)을 대표이사 가지급금으로 계상하였다가 가지급금 인정이자 계산에 따른 세부담을 회피할 목적으로 2004. 12.경 가지급금을 현금으로 회수한 것으로 허위기장한 후 60억 원의 양도성예금증서를 구입한 것처럼 가공자산을 계상하였다. ★★세무서장은 위 가공자산 60억 원을 손금산입함과 동시에 원고들, 윤CC, 황EE에게 귀속된 금액을 익금산입하고 각 상여 및 배당으로 처리하였고, 그 결과 원고 AA만에게는 1,616,696,068원, 원고 김BB에게는 위 1,616,696,068원을 포함한 2,166,696,068원이 각 상여로 소득처분되었다.

6) 소외 회사는 2005. 2. 10. ★★세무서장에게 원천징수이행상황신고서를 제출할 당시 이 사건 소득금액에 대한 원천정수세액을 반영하여 신고하지 아니하였다가 소외 회사에 대한 세무조사가 종결된 후인 2006. 5. 10. ★★세무서장에게 원천정수이행상황 (수정)신고서를 제출하면서 비로소 위 원천징수세액을 반영하였다.

7) On July 8, 2004, the plaintiffs were paid dividends after deducting the withholding tax amount based on the tax invoice (Evidence A No. 4) prepared in the course of settlement with the Prostitution on July 8, 2004, but did not assert and prove the specific payment method on October 21, 2009, the court urged the verification of the grounds for receiving dividends, and subsequently, submitted a statement of ordinary deposit transaction (Evidence A 11) by asserting that the sales amount was paid in the agricultural bank account under the name of the non-party company, where the sales amount was deposited, by keeping the total of the total tax amount and all kinds of expenses remaining. Accordingly, even if so, the payment details after July 8, 2004, which is the date on which the plaintiffs' assertion was settled, are not consistent with the plaintiffs' assertion.

8) The non-party company, without due process such as the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, appropriated 6 billion won including the above income amount as the provisional payment by the representative director in order to conceal it after paying the income amount of this case to the plaintiffs, and then falsely recorded it as if it were recovered in cash, and then appropriated the processed assets as if it purchased the certificate of gold in cash, it would be the corporate tax to be borne by itself, and the income tax to be borne by the plaintiffs. It is difficult to view that the non-party company with such a purpose has calculated the source tax while paying the above income amount to the plaintiffs.

C. Sub-decision

Ultimately, as long as the non-party company did not perform its obligation to set the source tax on the income amount of this case, the plaintiffs shall not deduct the amount equivalent to the above withholding tax from the global income tax for the year 2004. Thus, the disposition imposing the global income tax of this case is lawful without the need to further determine the remaining arguments of the plaintiffs.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing resident tax of this case among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the remaining claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

same judgment shall be rendered as above.