(a) Method of workers' consent to revise the previous rules of employment more disadvantageous than that of the previous employer;

B. Whether the payer of the income amount, who is the withholding agent, can collect and deduct the source tax prior to the due date of the income amount, and whether the scope of income itself reduces the source tax amount to the extent of the source tax

A. If the employer intends to revise the existing working conditions to the disadvantage of the worker due to the revision of the rules of employment, it is necessary to consent in accordance with the collective decision-making method of the worker to whom the previous working conditions or the rules of employment was applied, and any amendment of the rules of employment which did not obtain such consent is null and void. If there is no trade union, the consent is required by the majority of the workers in accordance with the meeting method, and the consent by the meeting method is allowed in exchange for opinions between the workers under the condition that the intervention or interference of the employer is excluded by the organization or unit department of a

B. Under the Income Tax Act, where a payer of income amount bears the obligation to pay withholding taxes on the premise of a beneficiary’s obligation to pay withholding taxes, and where a beneficiary’s obligation to pay withholding taxes is not established, a payer’s obligation to collect withholding taxes on such premise cannot be established. In principle, the obligation to pay withholding income tax on the income tax withheld under Article 21(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is established at the time of paying the relevant income amount in principle, and the corresponding obligation to pay withholding taxes is established at the time of establishment of the recipient’s obligation to pay withholding taxes on the income tax withheld under Article 21(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Therefore, the payer cannot

Article 95(1) of the former Labor Standards Act, Article 21(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 21 and Article 142 of the Income Tax Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Da39778 delivered on January 15, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 710), 93Da17898 delivered on August 24, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2606), 92Da20309 delivered on April 12, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1409) (Gong1409 delivered on May 26, 1992), 91Da38075 delivered on September 22, 1992 (Gong191Da40931 delivered on September 22, 1992)

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na1448 delivered on May 1, 200

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 94Na7590 delivered on April 15, 1994

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

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to the first and second points

In order for the employer to amend the existing working conditions to disadvantage workers due to the amendment of the rules of employment, the consent of the workers under the previous working conditions or the method of collective decision-making by the employees who were subject to the rules of employment is not effective, and there is no labor union to obtain such consent. The consent at this time requires the consent of a majority of the workers by the meeting method. The consent at this time is allowed in exchange for opinions between the workers in the absence of the employer's involvement or interference by the organization or unit department of one business or one workplace. Thus, if the defendant corporation changes the retirement allowance payment rate to employees disadvantageously without the consent of the employees by collective decision-making method, it shall be null and void unless there are special circumstances, and the court below's decision to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of employment. Even if there are circumstances such as the lawsuit, it cannot be deemed impossible for the defendant corporation to confirm the employees' intent by the above meeting method, and even if the resolution of the board of directors and the competent authorities of the defendant corporation did not obtain unfavorable consent from the employees.

In addition, even if the plaintiff retired from office without any objection despite the plaintiff's notification of the amendment to the retirement allowance rules disadvantageously, such circumstance alone alone does not lead to the invalid retirement allowance rules becoming the content of the employment contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, or it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff implicitly ratified the amendment to the retirement allowance rules. Therefore, the court below's decision to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles

On the third ground for appeal

The court below's decision to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as in the theory of lawsuit, since the plaintiff's receipt of retirement allowance calculated in accordance with the revised retirement allowance rules cannot be seen as a waiver of the right to retirement allowance under the previous rules. There is no ground for review.

On the fourth ground

Under the Income Tax Act, a payer of income amount bears the obligation to pay withholding taxes on the premise that a recipient’s source tax liability is a premise for a recipient’s source tax liability, and where a recipient’s source tax liability is not established, a payer’s obligation to collect source tax on the income tax withheld under Article 21(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes may not be established. In principle, the obligation to pay withholding taxes on the income tax withheld under Article 21(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is established at the time of payment of the income amount, and the corresponding time of establishment of the recipient’s obligation to pay withholding taxes is the same. Therefore, the payer is prohibited from collecting the source tax prior to the payment date of the income amount, and the scope of income itself does not reduce the amount of income to the amount of source tax as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da38075, May 26, 192;

In the same purport, the court below is just in ordering the defendant to pay a retirement allowance without deducting the withholding amount, and there is no violation of the theory of lawsuit.

The defendant will withhold income tax, etc. at the stage of paying retirement allowances to the plaintiff after the judgment of this case became final and conclusive. The arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)