2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The defendant asserts that even if he is liable to pay retirement allowances to the plaintiff, withholding income tax on retirement allowances should be deducted from retirement allowances.

On the other hand, the obligation to pay the income tax withheld under Article 21 (3) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is established when the amount of income is paid in principle, and the corresponding recipient's obligation to pay the income tax is established when the amount of income is paid. Thus, the payer is prohibited from collecting and deducting the source tax prior to the payment date of the above amount of income, and the scope of income itself cannot be said to be reduced by the amount of the source tax as a matter of course on the ground that it is the income subject

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da38075 delivered on May 26, 1992). However, in a case where a payer of income tax, etc. to be withheld prior to the payment of income amount after a withholding agent’s liability for tax payment was established due to the legal fiction of income payment, etc., if the payer of income tax, etc. was actually paid, the amount of legitimate tax actually paid may be deducted from

(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da36347, Oct. 27, 2014). According to the overall purport of the Plaintiff’s respective statements and arguments as prescribed in Article 11 through 14, the Defendant is recognized to have paid KRW 6,827,630 as income tax and local income tax that should be withheld from the Plaintiff’s retirement benefit.

Thus, the defendant's actual amount can be deducted in advance from the income amount to be paid to the plaintiff. Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is justified.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.