Where a withholding agent omits withholding tax on income disposition;

If there is no withholding tax on income to be withheld due to the disposition of income, if the income is to be added to the tax base of global income of the person to whom the income belongs, the taxation authority may impose it as global income tax on the person to whom

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The attachment disposition against the real estate listed in the attached list No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") owned by the defendant in Seoul Eastern District Court (Seoul Eastern District Court), which was accepted on October 23, 2008, is invalid.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff's status

(1) On October 10, 2005, the Seoul Central District Court 2004 non-hap337 decided to dissolve the real estate on November 7, 2005, a company established for the purpose of leasing and selling real estate, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company").

(2) The Plaintiff was the representative director of the non-party company from September 1, 200 to February 28, 2001.

B. The defendant's disposition of attaching light on taxation

(1) Notice of change in the income amount by the director of ○○ Tax Office

(A) Determination of estimated income of the non-party company

Pursuant to Article 66(3) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 104 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the head of the ○○ Tax Office estimated 201,789,021 won to the non-party company's lawsuit in 2000, and 156,88,913 won to the non-party company's income in 2001 on the grounds that the non-party company did not report each land transfer value to the non-party company's 1,056,487,026 won in 200, and 821,407,922 won in 201.

(B) Notice of change in income amount of the Plaintiff

Pursuant to Article 67 of the former Tax Act and Article 106 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the director of the ○○ Tax Office, at the time, disposed of KRW 67,236,07 as the bonus belonging to 2000, and KRW 156,88,913 as the bonus belonging to 200, and notified the change in the amount of income of each of the above amounts.

(2) Defendant’s taxation disposition

(A) On January 3, 2007, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff’s recognized leisure income data related to the non-party company from the head of ○○ Tax Office and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax amounting to KRW 32,683,910 for the year 200, and global income tax amounting to KRW 87,58,720 for the year 200. However, the Plaintiff did not pay the said tax by the said payment deadline.

(B) On October 5, 2007, the amount of global income tax imposed and notified by the Defendant on the Plaintiff was corrected due to a correction of the error in the term of office of the representative director, and the amount of KRW 131,958,620 of the said amount of income was changed to be reverted to the Intervenor who is the succeeding representative director of the Nonparty Company. Accordingly, the amount of global income tax for the year 2001 reverted to the Plaintiff was reduced to KRW 3,400,100 (income amount of KRW 24,930,2930,293) (hereinafter “instant taxation disposition”).

(C) Meanwhile, on August 8, 2008, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 40,050 on global income tax for the year 2007.

(3) Attachment disposition on the instant real property

On October 17, 2008, the defendant seized the real estate of this case owned by the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the attachment disposition of this case") in the same amount as "the delinquent amount related to the attachment of attached Table 2" on the ground that the plaintiff failed to pay the above comprehensive income tax.

(4) The global income tax amount belonging to the year 2001 of this case

(A) Meanwhile, the land transfer value of the non-party company 201 business year, which became the whole amount of global income tax for the year 2001, 821,407,922 won, (1) the non-party company owned shares of 270,463/30,258, and (2) the non-party company 36-79 and 8,052 square meters of land and 2 lots of land (hereinafter referred to as "land subject to expropriation") were expropriated in Chungcheongnam-do (2) the land subject to expropriation was expropriated in Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter referred to as "land subject to expropriation"), and (3) the non-party company sold the same share of 364,522 square meters of land and 292,522 square meters of land (hereinafter referred to as "land subject to the auction of this case") in a voluntary auction procedure.

(B) On January 5, 2001, the District Court held that the portion of the share held by the non-party company at the time of the registration of the decision on commencing auction as to the land of this case was unlawful on the ground that the non-party company did not own the share of the above land at the time of auction on October 20, 201, and on the ground that the income from the auction was not attributed to the non-party company, the part of the said auction under the premise that the income of the non-party company was generated due to the above auction among the tax dispositions belonging to the non-party company for the year 2001 (208Guhap4553).

(5) The global income tax for the year 2007 of this case

On November 29, 2008, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of KRW 40,050 on global income tax for the year 2007.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, evidence A 1 through 13, each entry of evidence B 1 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the attachment or disposition of the instant case is lawful; and

A. The principal of the plaintiff and the plaintiff assistant intervenor

The instant taxation disposition is unlawful as follows, and thus, the instant attachment disposition is null and void.

(1) As of October 5, 2007, the head of the ○○ Tax Office sent a notice of change in the amount of income that the Plaintiff would transfer KRW 131,958,620 to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, a succeeding representative director, and thus, did not have any income amount related to the Plaintiff.

(2) The Defendant imposed corporate tax on the non-party company as if it was the Plaintiff’s global income tax, and accordingly disposed of the Plaintiff’s personal property. Accordingly, the instant attachment disposition is null and void.

(3) Unlike a source-based corporation, the Plaintiff, a source-based taxpayer, merely bears the duty to collect and pay the source tax by the withholding agent, and does not bear a direct tax liability. Therefore, the imposition of income tax against the Plaintiff is unlawful.

(4) Compensation for the instant expropriated land was divided into two forms. The instant auction land was not owned by the non-party company at the time of auction, but owned by Kim Dong-dong and 72, and thus, the above expropriation compensation and the sales price are not included in the income of the non-party company. Nevertheless, the said expropriation compensation and the sales price are not included in the income of the non-party company. Nevertheless, the instant taxation is unlawful on the premise that the above expropriation compensation and the sales price

(b) Related statutes;

The relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in the attached Table 3 shall be as follows.

C. Determination

(1) The global income tax amount belonging to the year 2000

In a case where the attribution of the income amount in 2000 by the non-party company is unclear, the pertinent disposition of this case is legitimate by the non-party company based on Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which calculated the income amount in 2000 by the non-party company as the representative director of the non-party company, and imposed 32,638,910 won on the non-party company in proportion to the period of office of the representative director (as of September 1, 2000 - February 28, 2001), if it belongs to the non-party company in proportion to the period of office of the representative director of the non-party company (as of February 28, 2001), the income amount in 200 shall be 67,263,007 won (i.e., 201,789,021 wonx 12/366).

(2) Determination as to the petition for the extinguishment of tax liability

The Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the global income tax for the year 2001 of this case imposed and notified to the Plaintiff was KRW 87,58,720, and was reduced to KRW 3,400,100 due to a correction of the error in the term of office of the representative director on October 5, 2007 (the result of a change in the amount of KRW 131,958,620, out of KRW 156,88,913, income tax of KRW 156,88,913, which was changed to be reverted to the Intervenor’s Intervenor, the representative director, and the Plaintiff’s global income tax for the year 2001, which was imposed and notified to the Plaintiff, was 32,638,910, as seen earlier, has no merit.

(3) Determination on the petition for the invalidation of a seizure disposition

In addition to the statements in Gap evidence 2 and Gap evidence 4 through 6, it is recognized that the head of ○○ Tax Office served a notice of tax notice and change of income amount on the plaintiff, and the defendant served a notice of tax payment on global income tax and a notice of property seizure rate to the effect that the real estate of this case is seized as preserved bond, stating "decision on the portion recognized by the non-party company as a non-resident of income tax accrued in 200."

According to the above facts, the instant taxation disposition was imposed and notified to the Plaintiff who is a taxpayer pursuant to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the portion of the corporate tax stated in the notice of notice of taxation is merely stated in order to clarify the grounds for taxation that the Plaintiff is not liable to pay taxes in the position of representative director by indicating the income amount of the non-party company that served as the basis for calculating the amount of income of the Plaintiff, and it is clear that the corporate tax that the non-party company bears tax liability is not imposed

(4) Whether the plaintiff who is the original taxpayer is liable to pay the income tax

In cases where there is withholding tax on income to be withheld from the disposition of income, if such income is to be added to the global income tax base of the person to whom the income accrued, the taxation authority may impose it as global income tax on the person to whom the income accrue if such income is to be added (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Nu347, Sept. 22, 1981). According to Articles 4(1)1 and 20(1)1 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7006, Dec. 30, 2003) pursuant to Articles 4(1)1 and 20(1)1(c) of the Income Tax Act, bonus is Class A earned income and this is added to global income, and thus, the amount which is disposed of as bonus on the plaintiff is added to the amount that is equivalent to the

(5) Sub-committee

As long as the global income tax on the Plaintiff for the year 2000 is imposed lawfully and still remains in a delinquent state, the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2007 of the instant case was revoked or the global income tax for the year 2001 of the instant case was significantly reduced or corrected, the attachment disposition of the instant case cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed because there is no reason for the plaintiff's claim.