(a) Where a corporation pays the Class A labor income tax on behalf of its representative, but the bonus income does not actually belong to the representative, whether the corporation may exercise the right to indemnity against the representative (negative)

B. Even if the right to indemnity under the above "A" is recognized, whether the economic profit gained by the representative due to the extinction of prescription constitutes other income under Article 25 of the Income Tax Act (negative)

(c) Where a notice of payment of global income tax and defense tax is issued on the balance after deducting the withholding amount and the voluntary payment amount, the object of appeal litigation;

A. Under the Income Tax Act, in cases where the tax authorities rectify the tax base and amount of corporate tax and the amount of tax, if it is clear that the amount included in the calculation of earnings has not been reserved in the company and has leaked out of the company, but it is unclear, the corporation should withhold and pay the income tax for Class A work. However, in the internal relationship between the corporation and the representative, even if the corporation paid it on behalf of the representative without collecting it from the representative, the corporation cannot exercise the right to indemnity against the representative, unless the income recognized as a bonus was actually attributed to

B. Even if a corporation has a claim for reimbursement against its representative, the anti-private economic profit acquired by the representative after the lapse of ten years from the date of the substitute payment of the class A labor income tax for the corporation under Article 25 (1) 12 of the Income Tax Act cannot be deemed as money and valuables received by the corporation due to the special relation with the corporation under Article 25 (1) 15 of the same Act, Article 49-2 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 9-2 (1) 1 (d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 94-2 (1) 1 (d) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11813, Dec. 31, 1985) cannot be deemed as a disposition of the amount included in the calculation of earnings, and therefore, it

C. In a case where the tax base and amount of global income tax and defense tax are calculated, and specific tax liability is calculated, and only the balance remaining after deducting the amount of withholding tax and the amount of voluntary payment is notified to the taxpayer representative by a tax payment notice, the subject of appeal is not whether the act of notification is lawful, but whether the determination of the tax base

A. Article 32(5) of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 94-2(1)1 (d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 11813, Dec. 31, 1985); Article 25 of the Income Tax Act; Article 49-2(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 94-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 11813, Dec. 31, 1985); Article 128 of the Income Tax Act; Article 183 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Articles 2 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

(a) Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1548 delivered on November 8, 198 (Gong1988, 1519). Supreme Court Decision 89Nu2233 delivered on October 10, 1990 (Gong190, 2308)

[Judgment of the court below]

The Head of the Maternization Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu275 delivered on April 20, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

When the tax authorities rectify the tax base and amount of corporate tax, it is clear that the amount included in the calculation of earnings has not been reserved in the company and has been leaked to the company outside the company, but if the person to whom it belongs is unclear, the corporation concerned shall withhold and pay the income tax for Class A, but in the internal relationship between the corporation and the representative, even if the corporation paid it on behalf of the representative without collecting it from the representative, if the income recognized as a bonus was not actually attributed to the representative, the corporation shall not exercise the right to indemnity against the representative. Therefore, it is correct that the court below did not prove that the non-party company, which is the corporation, has no right to indemnity against the plaintiff on the same view.

In addition, even if the court below held that the corporation's claim for compensation against the plaintiff was made after ten years from March 1972 when it paid the plaintiff's Class A's income tax in lieu of the plaintiff's Class A's income tax, the claim was extinguished on March 1982, and the plaintiff's anti-private economic profit derived therefrom cannot be deemed as a money and valuables received from the corporation due to a special relationship with the corporation under Article 25 subparagraph 12 of the Income Tax Act, and it cannot be deemed as a money and valuables received from the corporation under Article 25 subparagraph 15 of the Income Tax Act, Article 49-2 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Article 94-2 (1) 1 (d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and it cannot be deemed as a disposition included in the gross income in the determination of corporate tax base, and therefore, it does not constitute other income under Article 25 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the judgment of the defendant

Finally, the taxation disposition by the Defendant on the instant tax, which is the national tax of the imposition principle, is to determine specific tax liability by calculating the tax base and amount of comprehensive income tax and defense tax based on the taxation data notified by the Commissioner of the Busan Local Tax Service, and to notify the Plaintiff who is the taxpayer by the tax payment notice only after deducting the amount already paid and the amount of voluntary payment (Article 183 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Article 128 of the Income Tax Act). The subject of the instant appeal lawsuit is not whether the act of notice is legitimate, but rather the determination disposition on the tax base and amount of tax that became effective by the notice, and therefore, it is not unlawful in the

For this reason, this appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)