1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 26,359,861 as well as to the plaintiff on April 2014.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. On July 28, 2005, the Plaintiff, who determined the cause of the claim, entered the Defendant Company as a member of the Do retail chain, is performing the business of customers, receipts and disbursements, sales and counseling, and the management of computerized programs related to finance.

The fact that the Plaintiff retired on March 31, 2014, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance during the above service period was 51,684,970 was 51,68,970 does not conflict between the parties. Thus, the Defendant Company is liable to pay the Plaintiff the retirement allowance of this case 51,684,970 won and damages for delay.

B. The defendant company's assertion and determination 1) The defendant company first asserts that since the defendant company paid KRW 1,910,860, such as withholding income tax on the above retirement pay, the amount equivalent to the above retirement pay should be deducted from the above retirement pay.

Therefore, as a matter of principle, the obligation of a person liable to collect income tax withheld under Article 21(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is established when the amount of income is paid, and the time when the recipient’s obligation to collect income is established is also the same. Therefore, the payer cannot collect and deduct the source tax prior to the due date of income.

However, in a case where a payer of income tax, etc. to be withheld prior to the payment of income amount after a withholding agent’s liability was established by deeming the payment of income, etc., such legitimate amount of tax actually paid may be deducted in advance from the amount of income to be paid (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da36347, Oct. 27, 2014); and the items in the evidence Nos. 5 and 7 are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant Company actually paid the income tax, etc. on the above retirement pay, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the above assertion by the Defendant Company is without merit.

B. Next, the defendant company and the defendant company are above the plaintiff.