손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On November 26, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendants and D (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Defendant’s partners”) on November 26, 2007 to provide the Plaintiff with a consulting service (diversified services, equipment, and electrical art) for the Plaintiff’s business until the Defendant’s partners open “G” from the 8,9, and 10th of the “F Buildings” on the land outside Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon. The payment of KRW 50 million on the day of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 50 million on December 17, 2007, and the remainder of KRW 50 million on the day of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 50 million on December 17, 200 on the opening of the business (hereinafter “instant service agreement”).
B. The Plaintiff received total of KRW 113.4 million from the Defendant’s partners on Nov. 26, 2007, KRW 50 million on Dec. 26, 2007, KRW 50 million on Dec. 26, 2007, and KRW 13.4 million on Jan. 24, 2008, and completed the work under the service contract of this case on Jan. 25, 2008.
C. The Plaintiff was notified by the head of Seongbuk-gu Tax Office and the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul District Office of the payment of the total amount of KRW 5,951,290 for global income tax and local income tax accrued in 2007 and 2008 until June 1, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5, 6 (including paper numbers), Eul 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion 1 is the plaintiff's assertion that although the plaintiff did not intend to withhold the income tax of KRW 150 million under the service contract of this case, the plaintiff's global income tax of KRW 30 million and the resident tax and the local income tax of KRW 36.6 million that the plaintiff should pay to the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall withhold the total amount of KRW 36.6 million, which is the amount of KRW 150 million and KRW 36.6 million under the service contract of this case, and the plaintiff shall pay KRW 113.6 million remaining after deducting KRW 36.6 million from the total amount of KRW 156 million under the service contract of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendants' compensation for damages is sought under the name of global income tax, resident tax and local income tax.