logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2020.06.03 2019가단83332
임금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 20% per annum to the plaintiff 59,123,376 won and the above amount from November 4, 2019 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 4, 2011, the Defendant was a corporation that operated non-metallic raw material recycling business, and the Plaintiff provided labor under employment to the Defendant and retired on October 20, 2019.

B. However, the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of wages and retirement allowances KRW 59,123,376 up to now.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum under Article 37 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 20 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, and Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, from November 4, 2019 to the date of full payment, which is the 14th day following the Plaintiff’s retirement date.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim amount is limited to the amount obtained by deducting the income tax, the four major premiums, etc. from the amount that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff.

The obligation to pay income tax withheld under Article 21(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is, in principle, established when the amount of income is paid, and the corresponding recipient’s obligation to pay is established. Thus, the payer cannot collect the source tax prior to the payment date of the above amount of income, nor deduct the source tax prior to the payment date, and the scope of income itself cannot be said to be reduced to the extent of the source tax as a matter of course by virtue of the income subject to withholding.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da38075 delivered on May 26, 1992, etc.). However, if a payer of income tax, etc. to be withheld prior to the payment of income amount after a withholding agent’s liability for tax payment was established due to the legal fiction of the payment of income, etc., was actually paid, such as the said payment.

arrow