(a) Requirements for establishing withholding obligation;

B. Criteria for determining whether income accrues in order to establish the source tax liability of wage and salary income earners

C. Whether there is a withholding obligation on the money paid by the payer after appeal by the recipient of a judgment in favor of the recipient of a provisional execution sentence in progress due to disputes over the existence or scope of a claim (negative)

A. In order to promote convenience in tax collection procedures and prevent delay in securing tax claims, the Income Tax Act, even if certain amounts of income, such as interest income, dividend income, earned income, retirement income, etc., have been deemed to have been paid in certain cases, and thereby imposes a withholding duty on the relevant payer. However, in cases where the payer of the income amount, who is the withholding agent, bears the withholding duty on the beneficiary’s source tax liability, the said payer’s withholding duty cannot be established.

B. In order to ensure that income subject to income tax, which is a prerequisite for the establishment of a beneficiary’s tax liability, has been realized, even if it is not necessary to realize the income, the right to generate income should be determined at least to considerably high level in the possibility of its realization.

C. In a case where there is a dispute between the payer of income and the beneficiary about the existence or scope of the claim, and such dispute cannot be deemed to be obviously unfair in light of the nature of the case, profit cannot be deemed to have been determined if it is deemed to be unfair. In addition, in the lawsuit, the amount paid after the beneficiary winning judgment of the provisional execution rendered by the appellate court and the payer appealeds against the appeal shall be interpreted to constitute "the payment due to the provisional execution declaration" under Article 201 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, unless there are special circumstances to recognize that it is a full voluntary performance. Thus, the payment of the amount is not fixed, and it is merely a provisional disposition with the condition that the provisional execution declaration or the principal judgment be cancelled in the appellate court, and therefore, it cannot be said that the income

(a) Article 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act; Article 28 (c) of the Income Tax Act; Article 201 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu323 delivered on October 28, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 79Nu296 delivered on April 22, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 79Nu441 delivered on February 10, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu26 delivered on June 11, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu374 delivered on November 26, 1985

Attorney Park Jae-dae and Kim Jae-type, Counsel for the Korea Productivity Center

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu763 delivered on March 16, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

In order to promote convenience in tax collection procedures and to prevent delay in securing tax claims, the Income Tax Act provides for legal fiction of payment that is deemed to have been paid in certain cases (Articles 146-2, 147, 150, and 164 of the Act) and imposes a withholding duty on a person liable for payment of income tax. However, it is assumed that the person liable for payment of the income amount, which is the withholding agent, bears the withholding duty on the premise of the recipient’s source tax liability. Thus, if the source of the recipient’s tax liability is not established, the dispute cannot be established (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu323, Oct. 28, 1986). On the other hand, in order to establish the source of the recipient’s tax liability, income which is subject to income tax should be generated, and if it is not necessary to realize the income, at least to have been declared in practice, it shall be determined to have been paid to the extent that the beneficiary’s right can be realized, and thus, it shall be determined to be paid within the extent of maturity.

In full view of the evidence adopted by the court below, the non-party worked as a full-time president of the Korea Productivity Corporation, which was a foundation that was a transfer of the defendant corporation, and retired on February 27, 1984. However, the non-party retired from office on February 27, 1984, but did not receive retirement allowances due to disputes over the interpretation of the provision on the payment of retirement allowances between the above foundation and the above foundation, and was sentenced to partial winning of the provisional execution declaration book on April 4, 1985. The above foundation filed an appeal and filed an appeal against the non-party, while the above foundation paid the above non-party the total amount of the amount ordered to pay in the above judgment on the 10th of the same month. The above judgment was partially modified at the appellate court. On the other hand, the defendant did not pay the above non-party the amount ordered to pay in the judgment of the first instance as above but did not withhold the pertinent income tax, etc., and it cannot be viewed that the above non-party's right to pay retirement benefits to the above non-party after the provisional execution decision was justified.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)