The time when the establishment of withholding tax liability is established in the income disposed of by the Corporate Tax Act.

According to the relevant provisions of Article 21(2)1, Article 22(2)3, Article 26-2(1)1, Article 26-2(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 12-3(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 143 of the Income Tax Act, Article 191 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 191 of the same Act, the obligation to pay withholding income tax shall be determined at the same time as it is established at the time of payment of income, and the withholding agent shall pay the withheld tax to the Government by the 10th day of the month following the month in which the date of collection falls. As such, the tax authority may exercise the right to impose the withheld tax from the 10th day of the following month when the withholding agent pays the income concerned, and on the other hand, with respect to the income disposed under the Corporate Tax Act, the obligation to automatically establish the withholding tax by deeming it to have been paid under Article 198(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Articles 21(2)1, 22(2)3, and 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 12-3(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 143 of the Income Tax Act; Articles 191, 198(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 85Nu775 Decided February 24, 1987 (Gong1987,554) 90Nu4631 Decided February 26, 1991 (Gong1991,1108) 92Nu8293 Decided January 19, 193 (Gong193,758)

Attorney Choi Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of North Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 91Gu279 delivered on February 10, 1993

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

Examining the evidence relations adopted by the court below in comparison with the records, the fact-finding by the court below is justified and it is not erroneous in the violation of the rules of evidence or the incomplete hearing. There is no reason to discuss.

2. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

According to the relevant provisions of Article 21(2)1, Article 22(2)3, Article 26-2(1)1, Article 26-2(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 12-3(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 143 of the Income Tax Act, Article 191 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 191 of the same Act, the obligation to pay withholding income tax is determined at the same time as it is established at the time of payment of the income amount, and the withholding agent shall pay the withheld tax amount to the Government by the 10th day of the month following the month following the month in which the date of collection falls. Thus, the tax authority can exercise the right to impose the withheld tax from the 10th day of the following month when the withholding agent pays the income concerned. On the other hand, with respect to the income disposed of under the Corporate Tax Act, since there is a notice of change in the income amount under Article 198(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, it automatically becomes final and conclusive.

Therefore, as determined by the court below of this case, if the defendant, in revising the corporate tax base of the plaintiff corporation in the business year of 1984, he disposed of the processing expenses in the decision as bonus to the officers of the plaintiff and notified the plaintiff corporation of the change of income amount on March 16, 1990, the plaintiff corporation shall pay the withholding tax for the amount disposed of as bonus until April 10, 1990, the 10th day of the following month, and the government shall be able to exercise its right of imposition from the time when the above statutory due date for payment expires. Thus, the defendant's taxation that notified the plaintiff corporation of the above withholding tax amount cannot be deemed to have been after the expiration of the exclusion period.

In contrast, the court below's decision is bound by the general rule, which is the internal guidelines of the tax office, and is presumed to be able to exercise the right to impose immediately from the time when the period of final return on the tax base of global income tax in 1984, which was not established by the plaintiff corporation, is the time when the period of final return on the tax base of global income in 1984 was expired, and judged to be illegal since the above tax disposition had expired the five-year limitation period, the effect of the notice of change in the amount of income and the legal principles as to the limitation period of the right to impose national tax, which is the time when the establishment of the tax obligation to withhold tax was established or the limitation period

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed and remanded to the court below. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)