Whether a person liable for tax payment may file an appeal against a tax payment notice issued by a withholding agent of a taxation right holder.

In withholding, a source taxpayer is not allowed to file an appeal against the tax payment notice against a withholding agent by the taxation authority unless the taxation authority directly imposes the source tax on him, and it is not affected by the existence or scope of his source tax liability.

Article 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act, Articles 2 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 4 others

the director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu10042 delivered on September 28, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.The cost of appeal is assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. It cannot be deemed that a withholding agent is substantially the same as a taxation disposition by a taxation authority, such as a theory that a withholding agent turns on to withhold from a original taxpayer.

In addition, unless the taxation right holder directly imposes the original tax amount on the person liable for withholding taxes, the tax payment notice to the person liable for withholding taxes cannot be affected by the existence or scope of his original tax liability.

In this regard, the court below is justified in holding that even if the plaintiff, a source taxpayer, sent a notice of rejection of the application for tax exemption through the non-party forest engineering corporation, the withholding agent, and the non-party company collected the tax withheld and paid by the non-party company, and deemed as an external opinion of a tax office similar to the notice of tax payment to the withholding agent, the plaintiff, a source taxpayer, cannot file an appeal against the defendant himself/herself, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the disposition subject to an appeal litigation and the standing as a party, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground to discuss this issue.

2. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below that found the lawsuit of this case to be unlawful is also justified even in the case where the lawsuit of this case was brought without going through legitimate pre-trial procedure, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the pre-trial procedure, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no ground for discussing this point.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)