Whether a new commercial construction business operator is liable to withhold income tax on the introduction fee that is paid to a real estate broker (negative)

As long as the intermediary operating real estate brokerage business has become the business income of the relevant intermediary under Article 20 (1) of the Income Tax Act, regardless of whether he/she has paid the business income tax, the broker has no obligation to withhold income tax under Article 142 (1) 5 of the same Act.

Articles 142(1)5 and 20(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 37(1)10(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 1990)

Plaintiff et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and four others

Head of Taecheon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu11600 delivered on June 7, 1991

Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6559 delivered on November 26, 1991

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu28322 delivered on April 2, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

After the plaintiff newly constructed the commercial building of this case, from June 27, 198 to February 16, 1989, the court below concluded a contract for the sale or lease of the commercial building of this case by requesting 20 intermediaries, such as non-party 1, etc. to sell or lease it to them, and paid a total of 97,61,90 won to the above intermediaries, and acknowledged that the above intermediaries continued to operate the real estate brokerage business with the office and part of them have completed the business registration, and determined that the above intermediaries should be regarded as the real estate brokerage business operator, and therefore, as long as they become the business income of the pertinent broker under Article 20 (1) of the Income Tax Act, regardless of whether they paid the income tax, the court below made a decision that the above intermediary's tax disposition of this case is unlawful.

According to the relevant evidence and the records and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the Income Tax Act or an erroneous fact-finding without making a deliberation as in the judgment of the court below, and there is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)