(a) Income subject to the year-end adjustment;

(b) Where the balance sheet publicly announced is prepared by integrating or subdividing, etc. the balance sheet and account titles submitted to the Government, whether such public notice is valid;

As income tax is imposed on the amount of income for one year from January 1 to December 31, 200, the year-end tax settlement should be made on the amount of wages that can be withheld at source, and Article 150 of the Income Tax Act is only a provision on the agenda for the payment of wage and salary income, and it cannot be said that the year-end tax settlement should be made regardless of whether it is actually paid at source.

B. Even if, in the public notice of the balance sheet, a public notice is made differently from the balance sheet submitted to the government at the time of filing the tax base return due to the incorporation of subdivided similar items or the subdivision of such items, it is reasonable to deem that the public notice is valid unless the total amount is consistent with the total amount of each account on the balance sheet, as well as the balance sheet and the total amount of each account submitted to the Government are consistent with each item, and as a whole,

(a) Articles 8, 149, 150, and 152 of the Income Tax Act;

Attorney Park Su-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

The Director of the Korean Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu31,171 (Consolidated) Decided February 21, 1984

Of the judgment below, the part against the defendant regarding withholding income tax and defense tax shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's remaining final appeals shall be dismissed, and the costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Part of the withheld labor income tax and their defense tax;

(1) As to ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below calculated the total amount of non-taxable income without calculating taxable income and calculating the total amount of non-taxable income for non-party 1 in calculating taxable income and its defense tax, even though the court below found that non-party 1 was non-taxable income for which income tax is not imposed under Article 5 subparagraph 4 (g) of the Income Tax Act and Article 8 subparagraph 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act among the statement on the detailed statement on the attached calculation of the attached calculation of the attached calculation statement of the attached calculation statement and paid to non-party 2, (2), (7), (8), (9), (9), (10), (11), (11), (12), and (13) of the attached calculation statement of the attached calculation statement of the judgment below.

After all, the judgment of the court below, where it is obvious that the effect of the judgment was affected by the judgment (in the part of the above part of the non-party 2, it is obvious that the defendant would not have any benefit to appeal, but if combined with the above part of the non-party 1, it is obvious that there is a benefit to appeal as a withholding income tax imposed on the plaintiff company and defense tax incidental thereto) cannot avoid this part of the judgment of the court below.

(2) As to ground of appeal No. 2

If the provisions of Articles 8(1), 149(1), and 152(1) of the Income Tax Act are collected, the withholding agent shall withhold the difference after making income deduction from the employment income amount of the corresponding year of the person who receives it, and shall withhold the income tax at the time when the withholding agent pays the monthly employment income of Class A, and the method of withholding shall be the income tax at the time when the withholding agent pays the monthly employment income of Class A, and the income tax shall be the income tax at the time when the withholding agent pays the income for the period from January 1 to December 31, 200. Thus, the year-end adjustment shall be made for the wages for which the withholding is possible, and the provisions of Article 150 of the Income Tax Act shall not be said to be for the amount of wages for which the withholding is actually made.

According to the court below's lawful determination, the method of paying monthly salary to a national of the plaintiff company shall be the 25th day of each month from the 16th day of the following month to the 15th day of the following month, and the year-end settlement shall be the business year from December 16 of each year to December 15 of the following year, and the amount of the total salary paid from December 25 of the preceding year to December 15 of the current year from December 25 of the following year, the actual payment date of the said salary shall be the total salary paid to a national from December 16 of the preceding year to December 15 of the current year. Therefore, the payment method of the plaintiff company's year-end settlement from January 25, 1980 to December 25 of the following year shall be justified in the holding that the plaintiff company's independent payment method and the defense income from December 16, 1979 to December 31 of the following year shall not be accepted.

2. Part of the corporate tax;

(1) As to the third ground for appeal:

If the provisions of Articles 63(1) and 41(4) of the Corporate Tax Act are collected, a person who pays the amount of income shall submit a payment record prescribed by the Presidential Decree to the Government by the end of the month following the month in which the payment is made, and if the payment record is not fulfilled, an additional tax shall be paid. Thus, if the plaintiff company did not submit the payment record by making the taxable income subject to non-taxable income from the pay paid by foreigners as the non-taxable income, the imposition of additional tax shall be justified (According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below concluded the above conclusion, and revoked the disposition of taxation in whole on the ground that the corporate tax will not be imposed upon the deduction of erroneous or erroneous payments). On the other hand, as shown in the ground of appeal No. 2 of the above ground of appeal, the payment record from December 16, 1979 to December 31 of the same year shall be paid to the national, and therefore, the plaintiff company has no obligation to submit the payment record by withholding the tax at source on December 31, 1979.

(2) As to ground of appeal No. 4

In publicly announcing a balance sheet pursuant to Article 64 of the Corporate Tax Act, even if a corporation liable to pay corporate tax has publicly announced differently from the balance sheet submitted by the government at the time of filing the tax base return because it combines the subdivided similar items of accounts or dividess the items, etc., such public notice shall be deemed valid unless the total amount is identical to the total amount of each account on the balance sheet, as well as the balance sheet and the balance sheet submitted to the government are identical with each item of each total amount, and as a whole, it seems that the purpose of public notice is violated. Thus, according to the legal determination of the court below, the balance sheet of 1979 that was publicly announced by the company on February 13, 1980 was different from the balance sheet of the year in which the plaintiff company submitted to the government and was integrated into or subdivided into some accounts and did not perform the duty of public notice on the balance sheet, so it cannot be deemed that the defendant's revocation of the disposition of imposing additional tax on the balance sheet of this case cannot be viewed as unlawful.

3. Therefore, the ground of appeal No. 1 as to withholding income tax and defense tax among the judgment below is well-grounded, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remaining grounds of appeal are all dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing judge. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)