Tax withholding and Pre-trial Proceedings

In a case where a withholding agent collects and pays Gap taxes to a worker, filing a lawsuit against a home country against the worker is deemed dismissed due to a lack of party or a lack of legitimate pre-trial procedure.

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

The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

"1. 원고는 1986. 12. 19. 미국시민권을 취득하고 1988. 10 .14. 자로 대한민국의 국적을 상실하여 제적되었으며, 1990 7. 9. 현재의 근무처인 소외 ㅇㅇ엔지니어링주식회사(이하소외회사'라 한다) 입사하여 위 회사 기술연구소에서 정보사업분야의 업무를 담당하고 있는 사실, 원고는 자신이 소외회사에 근로를 제공하고 지급받는 근로소득에 대하여는 조세감면규제법 제21조 제1항의 규정에 의하여 소득세가 면제되어야 한다고 주장하면서, 1991. 4. 4. 같은 법 제21조 제2항 및 같은 법 시행령 제18조 제2항의 규정에 의하여 원천징수의무자인 소외회사를 거쳐 원천징수 관할 세무서장인 피고에게 세액면제신청서를 제출하였으나, 피고는 같은 달 11. 원고가 같은 법 제2조 제1항 제1호 소정의 내국인에 해당함을 이유로 근로 소득세를 면제할 수 없다고 통보한 사실, 이에 소외회사는 같은 해 8. 30. 국세청장에게 원고가 같은 법 제21조 소정의 외국인기술자에 해당하는지 여부에 관하여 질의를 하였는바, 이에 대하여 국세청장은 위 법에 의하여 근로소득세를 면제받는 외국인의 경우 국내에서 최초로 근로를 제공한 날로부터 5년이 되는 날이 속하는 달까지 발생한 근로소득에 대하여만 소득세가 면제되는 것인데, 원고는 1979. 4. 3. 미국영주권을 취득함으로써 위 법에서 말하는 외국인 범주에 들어가고 그는 국내에서 1984. 2.부터 근로를 제공하였으므로, 위 질의당시의 근로소득에 대하여는 소득세가 면제될 수 없다는 최지의 통보를 1991. 9. 27. 자로 보낸 사실, 한편 소외회사는 1990. 7. 경부터 1992. 6월분까지 원고의 근로소득에 대한 소득세 및 주민세를 원천징수한 후 이를 피고에게 납부한 사실 등은, 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없거나 갑제1 내지 5호증, 갑제6호증의 1 내지 3, 갑제 7내지 15호증의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하여 이를 인정할 수 있다.",2. 원고는, 그가 1988. 10. 14.에 비로서 대한민국의 국적을 상실하여 외국인이 되어 그 때에 상공부장관의 외국인고용추천도 받았으므로, 원고에 대하여는 조세감면규제법 제21조 제1항의 규정에 따라 그가 국내에서 근로제공을 하기 시작한 이후로서 외국인이 된 시점인 1988. 10. 14.부터 5년이 되는 날이 속하는 달인 1993. 10. 까지 발생한 근로소득에 대한 소득세 등을 면제하여야 됨에도 불구하고, 피고는 1991. 4. 4. 소외회사가 원고의 근로소득에 관하여 한 소득세면제신청을 받아들이지 아니한다는 통보를 보낸 이후로 계속하여 원고의 근로소득에 대한 소득세 및 이에 따른 주민세를 징수하여 왔고, 소외회사가 1992. 11. 20. 에 이르러 한 위 납부세금에 대한 환급신청마저 거부한 것은 위법하므로, 원고에게 위 징수한 소득세 및 주민세를 환급하여야 한다고 주장 하면서, 위 부과징수처분의 취소를 구하고 있고, 이에 대하여 피고는 먼저 본안전항변으로서, 이 사건 세금은 원천징수의무자인 소외회사가 원고로부터 원천징수하여 피고에게 납부한 것이지 피고가 이를 원고로부터 부과징수한 사실이 없으므로 이 사건 소는 당사자적격이 없는 자를 상대로 제기한 것일 뿐만 아니라, 적법한 전심절차를 거치지 아니하고 제기된 것이므로, 어느모로 보나 부적법함을 면할 수가 없다고 다툰다.

The term "tax withholding" means that a person who pays the income or income amount collects the tax amount at source on behalf of the Government under the conditions as prescribed by the Act, and the person who is liable to collect it under the Act shall be the withholding agent, and the collected tax amount shall be paid to the Government by the 10th day of the month following the month in which the date of collection falls (Articles 142 and 143 of the Income Tax Act), and in the case of the income tax or corporate tax withheld at source, the liability to pay the national tax shall be established when the income or income is paid (Article 21 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes), and the tax amount shall be finalized without any special procedure when the liability to pay

As above, a person who is legally liable to pay taxes to the State in withholding taxes is a withholding agent, on the other hand, a withholding agent is not a withholding agent, in principle, a withholding agent is not a withholding agent, but a withholding agent is only an abstract tax liability in the sense that if the requirements for withholding taxes are met, a withholding agent shall be liable to pay taxes (However, if a withholding tax is to be reported in addition to the global income tax base and the withholding tax is omitted, the withholding tax may be imposed as global income tax on the source taxpayer, and in such a case, a withholding agent shall be deemed to be directly liable to pay taxes to the State. In such a case, the determination of withholding tax shall be determined by either the source taxpayer, the withholding agent, or the withholding agent, and it shall be determined at the same time as satisfying the requirements for establishing the taxation claims and thus, even if the withholding agent fails to pay the source tax in order to collect the withholding tax, this shall not be a disposition of withholding taxes in the nature of the withholding tax, but shall be deemed to be a disposition of withholding tax, and thus, it shall be deemed to be an official disposition of withholding tax (see Supreme Court Decision 174).

However, in the case of a original taxpayer, a notice of tax payment issued by a person liable for taxation cannot be filed against the person liable for taxation unless the person liable for taxation directly imposes the original tax amount on the person liable for taxation (the reason is that the person liable for taxation has no standing to file an appeal suit against the person liable for tax payment since the person liable for tax payment does not have any influence on the existence or scope of the original taxpayer’s tax liability due to the notice of tax payment by the person liable for taxation). In this case, the original taxpayer may file a suit against the person liable for taxation in relation to the existence and scope

In this case, in addition to the collection of the withholding tax paid by the non-party company that is the withholding agent, the defendant did not make a separate disposition, such as tax payment notice, on the ground that the non-party company that is the withholding agent has mistakenly collected the withholding tax, but as seen above, the plaintiff collected the withholding tax by the non-party company that is the withholding agent. Thus, in the case where the non-party company that is the withholding agent is deemed to have expressed external opinion similar to the above tax payment notice, the non-party company that is the withholding agent that differs from its content and view can file an administrative suit as an objection, but the plaintiff who is the withholding agent cannot directly file an administrative suit against the defendant on the grounds as seen above.

In addition, even if the plaintiff, who is the source of household affairs, is able to file an appeal litigation as a direct interested person of the tax authority's disposition, the plaintiff is refused on November 20, 1992 after filing an application for refund of the above withholding tax, and the above rejection disposition is deemed an administrative disposition, and on January 27, 1993 (which appears to be erroneous as of January 27, 1992 as of January 1993), the plaintiff was ordered to dismiss the above disposition for the same reason after receiving a request for examination from the Board of Audit and Inspection on the above disposition for 6th day of the appeal (the date of this case's request for examination as of January 27, 1993). However, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's rejection of the above disposition is a legitimate disposition that affects the existence or scope of the taxpayer's claim for refund, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's request for review and the above rejection disposition should not be made within 9th day of this case's request for review (see Supreme Court Decision 2060Da6499999, supra.).

3. If so, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is not a subject of an appeal litigation, or is illegal since it was instituted without a legitimate procedure of prior trial, and it is inappropriate to dismiss it without a need to further examine the merits, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.