Where the tax authority did not notify the change in the amount of income after the disposition of income or revoked or withdraws it after the disposition of income, whether the tax authority is liable to withhold taxes from the corporation (negative)

Where the tax authority's disposition of income and the notice of change in the amount of income accrued therefrom are given, the corporation that is the withholding agent shall be deemed to have paid the amount to the person to whom the income recorded in the notice was given on the date of receipt of the notice of change in the amount of income, and the corporation's withholding duty is established at the same time. However, since the tax authority's internal disposition of income does not immediately establish the withholding duty by the disposition of income, and only requires the notice of change in the amount of income, the corporation's withholding duty is established and confirmed. Thus, even if the tax authority made the internal disposition of income, even if it did not notify the corporation of the details thereof through the notice of change in amount of income

Article 32 (5) (see current Article 67) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998), Article 94-2 (see current Article 106) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970 of Dec. 31, 1998), Article 192 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15747 of Apr. 1, 1998), Article 22 (2) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Du1878 Decided April 20, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 940) Decided August 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2676)

The bankruptcy trustee of the bankrupt Malaysia Corporation

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu11663 delivered on January 19, 2006

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Where the tax authority's disposition of income and the notice of change in the amount of income are given, the person responsible for collecting withholding taxes shall be deemed to have paid the corresponding amount to the person to whom the income recorded in the notice was given on the date of receipt of the notice of change in the amount of income, and at the same time the corporation's obligation to withhold withholding taxes is established. However, since the tax authority's internal disposition of income is not immediately established by the disposition of income, and only when the notice of change in the amount of income is issued, the corporation's obligation to withhold taxes is established and confirmed. Thus, even if the tax authority has internal disposition of income, if the tax authority did not notify the corporation of the change in the amount of income through the notice of change in the amount of

The court below, based on its adopted evidence, issued a notice of change in the amount of income of this case to the plaintiff on April 4, 2001, when the plaintiff did not pay the amount of income that should be withheld accordingly, and notified the collection on July 13, 2001. The defendant issued a notice of change in the amount of income to correct all the amount of income in the notice of change in the amount of income of this case on December 26, 2001 and revoked the collection disposition on January 2, 2002. However, on June 2, 2003, the defendant, who was pointed out by the Board of Audit and Inspection, issued a notice of change in the amount of income of this case to the plaintiff on June 2, 2003 (hereinafter "the notice of change in the amount of income of this case"), and determined that the defendant did not have any obligation to collect the amount of income of this case to the plaintiff on June 2, 200, since it did not recognize the change in the amount of income of this case to the plaintiff.

In light of the above legal principles and records, although the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient in its reasoning, it is just in its conclusion that the collection disposition of this case conducted without a notice of change of income amount due to the absence of a legitimate notice of change of income amount is unlawful, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles, as otherwise

In addition, even if the Defendant again notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income after the instant collection disposition, the instant collection disposition cannot be seen as retroactively effective.

Ultimately, we cannot accept all the arguments in the grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)