The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the assertion that withholding tax should be deducted, (1) as a matter of principle, the obligation of the person liable to collect income tax, etc. withheld under Article 21(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is established when the amount of income is paid, and the corresponding recipient’s obligation to collect income tax is established when the amount of income is paid. As such, the payer cannot deduct the amount of income tax in advance

(See Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu2872 Decided October 24, 198, and Supreme Court Decision 91Da38075 Decided May 26, 1992, etc.). However, in cases where a payer of income tax, etc., to be withheld prior to the payment of income, etc. after a withholding agent’s liability for tax payment was established due to the legal fiction of income payment, etc., was actually paid, the amount of legitimate tax actually paid can be deducted in advance from the amount of income to be paid.

(2) In this case, the plaintiffs claimed the payment of retirement allowances against the defendant, the defendant argued that the amount to be paid to the plaintiffs should be calculated by deducting the already paid source tax amount from the defendant.

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that, by citing the above Supreme Court Decision 91Da38075, the payer cannot deduct the source tax in advance prior to the due date of payment of the income amount, and even if the Defendant paid the source tax in advance, the Defendant may withhold the income tax at the stage of payment of retirement allowances after the decision became final and conclusive, and if the Plaintiffs, who are the recipients, refuse to receive retirement allowances after deducting the withholding tax amount, they may be exempted from the obligation by making payment deposit.

(3) In accordance with the above legal principle, the above judgment of the court below is not correct.

The former Income Tax Act on December 31, 2009.