1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The court's explanation of this part of the defense prior to the merits is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The parties’ assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition argues that “The Plaintiff’s key payment of key pay and retirement pay exemption under the authorization of the instant rehabilitation plan was entirely unlikely to realize the income generated from the instant key pay and retirement pay of the person related to the instant case. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s obligation to withhold income tax was lost. Therefore, the aforementioned grounds are corresponding to Article 45-2(4) and (2)5 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 25-2 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and fall under the grounds for subsequent request for correction stipulated in Article 25-2 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework

On the other hand, the defendant, on November 10, 2013, withheld and paid the income tax on key pay and retirement pay to the defendant on the basis of the provision on payment under Articles 135(1) and 147(1) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, even if the payment of key pay and retirement pay was exempted due to the approval of the rehabilitation plan of this case, this does not constitute a ground for subsequent correction under Article 45-2(4) and (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.

In addition, the exemption from the payment of the key benefit and retirement allowance by the authorization of the rehabilitation plan of this case can be seen as the voluntary abandonment of the claim by the person with special interest who is subject to withholding tax. In this respect, it constitutes grounds for filing a subsequent claim for correction under the above Framework Act on National Taxes.