Whether the representative of an administrative litigation against the payment of withholding taxes by a corporation can be filed

The non-party company, who is a withholding agent, may institute an administrative litigation against the defendant's notice of change in income amount. However, in the case of a source taxpayer, it is not affected by the existence or scope of his own source tax liability due to a notice of tax payment to the withholding agent of the person having the authority to impose tax unless the person having the authority to impose tax directly imposes the source tax on him, and it is not qualified

Article 127 of the Income Tax Act

Article 21 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendant’s imposition and collection of Class A earned income in the year 2001 against the Plaintiffs on February 4, 2005 as KRW 135,503,390, and Class A earned income in the year 2002 as KRW 87,828,910, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On January 5, 2005, the Defendant paid ○ University KRW 400,00,000,000 as research service costs, and received KRW 300,000,000 on January 8, 2002, and received each return of KRW 297,750,000 on November 26, 2002 as corporate expenses and paid the corporate tax in 2001 and 202 as corporate tax, and the Defendant corrected the corporate tax of the non-party company by adding the above amount to the non-party company’s income amount to the non-party company’s joint representative at that time, and received the notification of the above amount to the non-party company’s income amount to the non-party company for 395,90,000,000,000, 2075, 207, 2075, and 207.

B. However, on January 7, 2005, before receiving a notice of tax investigation or a notice of tax payment of corporate tax or a notice of change in income amount from the defendant, the non-party company deposited the research service expenses returned as above to the non-party company’s passbook, and paid the additional tax amount by filing a revised return of corporate tax to the defendant. Thus, the non-party company made a disposition of bonus to the plaintiffs who are the representative at the time when the defendant was not known as belonging to the defendant. Accordingly, on February 4, 2004, the non-party company made a disposition of bonus from the representative at the time when it was not known as belonging to the defendant. Accordingly, the non-party company collected the total of KRW 223,32,300 from the plaintiffs, Class A earned income in 201 and KRW 87,828,910 from the plaintiffs, Class A earned income in 203,32,300, and the above detailed statement and disposition

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

The term "tax withholding" means that a person who pays the income amount or income amount collects it at source on behalf of the government under the provisions of the Act, and the person who is liable to collect the tax amount under the Act is the withholding agent, and the collected tax amount is the person liable to pay it at the competent tax office, etc. by the 10th day of the month following the month in which the date of collection falls (Articles 127 and 128 of the Income Tax Act), the liability to pay the tax is established when he pays the income tax (Article 21 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). The tax amount is determined without special procedures at the time when the tax liability becomes effective, and in determining or correcting the corporate income amount under the Corporate Tax Act, the dividend, leisure, and other income disposed of shall be notified by the head of a tax office or the director of a regional tax office within 15 days from the date of determination or correction, and in this case, the relevant dividend, leisure, and other income shall be deemed to have been paid on the date of receipt of such notice (Article 192 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act).

As above, a person who is legally liable to pay taxes to the State in withholding taxes is a withholding agent, and the defendant is the withholding agent, and the non-party company, the withholding agent, collected the taxes withheld from the plaintiffs. Thus, the non-party company, the withholding agent, may institute an administrative litigation against the defendant's notice of change in income amount. However, in the case of the source taxpayer, unless the withholding agent directly imposes the source tax on the withholding agent, the duty payment notice to the withholding agent by the withholding agent of the taxation authority does not affect the existence or scope of his own source tax liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2234, Sept. 9, 194). Thus, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful since it was filed by the non-party, which is

In addition, even if the plaintiff, a domestic source taxpayer, can file an appeal as a direct interested party to the disposition of the tax authority, and if the purport of pleading is added to the statement in Gap evidence No. 3, the non-party company's whole purport of pleading, on February 4, 2004, the non-party company's income tax 135,503,390 won, and the non-party company's income tax 87,828,910 won, and the non-party company's income tax 87,32,300 won, were withheld from the defendant in 202 and paid national tax to the National Tax Tribunal on April 6, 2005, and the above appeal was dismissed on Nov. 16, 2005, it can be acknowledged that the non-party company and the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in this case, but the non-party company's withdrawal of the lawsuit was not a legitimate one before the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in this case's prior to the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit in this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.