2. The judgment by deeming the confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act) was rendered on October 16, 2020, the Defendant filed an application for resumption of the pleading for the allegation of the above deduction, arguing that “the Defendant cannot pay to the Plaintiff the national health insurance premium, long-term care insurance premium, income tax, resident tax, etc., for which the Defendant is liable to withhold is obligated to do so directly.”

However, the Defendant did not submit any defense method, even though the date of pleading was two times or more after the Plaintiff stated the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim at the fifth date for pleading.

In addition, in principle, the obligation of the person liable to collect the withheld income tax is established at the time of paying the income and the time of establishing the obligation to accept the recipient corresponding thereto. Thus, the payer cannot collect and deduct the source tax prior to the time of payment of the above income amount, and the scope of income itself is the income subject to withholding, and the scope of income does not automatically reduce the source tax amount.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da23180 Decided September 23, 1994, etc.). Such a legal doctrine likewise applies to national pension contributions, national health insurance premiums, and employment insurance premiums under Article 88-2(1) of the National Pension Act, Article 79(1) of the National Health Insurance Act, and Article 16-2(1) of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da85472, 85479, 85489, 85496, 85502). Accordingly, the Defendant’s application for resumption of pleadings is rejected.