A person liable for original tax payment shall not directly file an appeal against the taxation authority.

Unless a person liable for tax payment imposes a source tax on the person liable for tax payment, the person liable for tax payment is not affected by the existence or scope of his own source tax liability due to a notice of tax payment to the person liable for tax payment unless the person liable for tax payment imposes the source tax on him. Thus, the lawsuit

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of 28,698,00 won of the source earned income tax on August 28, 2009 with respect to △△ Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “△△”) and revoked the 4,138,580 won of the imposition of 28,69,000 won.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From March 1, 1996 to December 31, 2008, the Plaintiff was an employee at the △△ Heavy Industries ○○ Office. On April 20, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a tax evasion report with the National Tax Service to the effect that “△△ Heavy Industries did not perform its duty to withhold taxes on overtime ground.”

B. As a result of the on-site verification of the △ Heavy Industries in accordance with the above tax evasion report, the Defendant’s confirmation that △△ Heavy Industries does not include overtime work allowances paid to ○○ Office’s driver from around 2004 to July 2008, and thus, it was found that the earned income tax was withheld insufficiently.

Along with this, I agreed.

C. On August 28, 2009, 2009, the △△ Heavy Industries reported and paid the revised tax amount of KRW 31,344,090 (tax withheld at KRW 28,698,000 + KRW 2,646,090) to the Defendant for the tax withholding for the year 2004 through 2008.

D. On the other hand, on August 28, 2009, the defendant notified the plaintiff that he processed the information on tax evasion as follows, under the title of "the notice on the result of handling the information on tax evasion to the plaintiff."

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 3, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant imposed a tax on the earned income tax on the △△ Heavy Industries on August 28, 2009, and sought the revocation of the portion related to the Plaintiff’s 4,138,580 won.

However, as seen earlier, according to the results of the on-site investigation by the National Tax Service, △ Heavy Industries paid to the operator of ○○ Office including the Plaintiff, the overtime work allowance paid to the Plaintiff was omitted from the total wage amount, and only collected and paid to the Defendant. Unlike the Defendant, the Defendant did not impose the above wage and salary income tax on the Plaintiff, a withholding agent, and notified the determined tax amount according to the result of the on-site verification, even if the Plaintiff, a withholding agent, was not directly liable to pay the source tax, the Plaintiff cannot file an appeal against this issue since it does not affect the existence or scope of its original tax liability due to the notice of tax payment on the △△ Heavy Industries, a withholding agent of the taxation authority, unless the Defendant directly imposed the source tax on him (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2234, Sept. 9, 1994). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case appears to be unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.