1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional contents, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. 1) The Defendant is obligated to pay only the remaining amount after deducting the amount of withholding tax from the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance, and the judgment ordering the payment of the total amount of retirement allowance is unreasonable. 2) The obligation to pay the withholding income tax under the relevant statutes is established when the amount of income is paid in principle at the time of payment, and the corresponding beneficiary’s several obligations are established. Therefore, the payer cannot collect and deduct the source tax prior to the due date of payment of income amount. However, in exceptional circumstances such as where the payer of income tax, etc. to be withheld prior to the due date of payment after the establishment of the obligation to pay the withholding tax due to the legal fiction of the payment of income, etc., if there are exceptional circumstances such as where

(2) In the instant case, there is no assertion or proof that there is no exceptional circumstance, such as that the Defendant had already paid the original amount of the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance to the tax authority, and there is no ground to prove that the Defendant had already paid the original amount of the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance. As such, this court ought to order the Defendant to pay the full amount of the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance.

However, the defendant may withhold income tax, etc. and pay only the remainder at the stage of paying retirement allowances, after the judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. 1) The Defendant asserts that the amount accumulated as retirement pension (4,165,549 won) should be deducted from the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance. 2)