Article 198 of the Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act

Article 198 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the chief of the tax office who makes a determination or correction of corporate income amount shall notify the juristic person concerned of the change of income amount within 15 days from the date of the determination or correction thereof, and that the juristic person shall pay the income amount to the person to whom the income amount belongs on the date of the notification, unless there are such provisions, the State may immediately impose a notice of the payment of additional dues on the juristic person who fails to perform the obligation to pay withholding taxes, a disposition of notice of the payment or criminal punishment of the prescribed additional dues upon the occurrence of the fact that the juristic person has failed to perform the obligation to pay withholding taxes by the said notice, in consideration of the profits of the juristic person, and the payment date is deemed as above, so that the juristic person can faithfully perform the obligation to pay withholding taxes by making the time of payment postponed for

Article 150 (4) of the Income Tax Act, Article 198 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Madule Co., Ltd

Korea

Seoul Civil History District Court (83 Gohap6533)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,565,687 and the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 95 percent per annum from August 10, 1982 to the full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant in the first and second trials.

When the director of the Cheongju District Tax Office of July 7, 1982 determined the actual investigation of the corporate income amount of the Plaintiff Company for the business year on July 7, 1982, he calculated the sales revenue for the omitted return amount as KRW 66,084,934 out of the Plaintiff’s sales revenue in the business year. Under Article 94-2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the above amount shall be deemed as the bonus to the Nonparty who was the representative director of the Plaintiff at the time of the business year, and Article 150 of the Income Tax Act, and Article 198(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be deemed as the bonus to the Nonparty who was the representative director of the Plaintiff at the time of the above business year. According to Article 198(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Nonparty’s Class A earned income amount as the source income for the above recognized contribution, which was 9,260,565,687 won, the above notice of refund amount to the Plaintiff 18.

The plaintiff is not clear from the corporation's representative's bonus to be paid to the corporation by the head of the competent tax office in accordance with Article 198 (1) of the Enforcement Decree. If the corporation notifies the change of income amount under Article 198 (2) of the above Enforcement Decree, the corporation shall be deemed to have paid the above income to its representative on the date of receipt of the above notice. Thus, the plaintiff's payment of the above recognized amount to the net non-party shall be July 8, 1982 upon receipt of the plaintiff's notice of change of income amount. Meanwhile, according to the provisions of Article 142 of the Income Tax Act, the duty to withhold income tax is generated when the plaintiff pays the income amount or income amount to the domestic resident or non-resident, and the non-party, who is the non-party's income, has already died before the above date. Accordingly, although the plaintiff did not have the duty to withhold income tax and defense tax as to the non-party's income, the plaintiff asserts that the above change of income amount should be appropriated to the plaintiff as the above notification of change in income amount.

According to Article 142 of the Income Tax Act, a person who pays a certain amount of income to a resident or a nonresident in Korea is obligated to withhold income tax under the same Act, and according to Article 21 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the above obligation to withhold income tax is established when he pays it to the above resident or the nonresident. Considering each item of evidence No. 5-1, 2, and 3 of the same Act without dispute over the establishment, the above obligation to withhold income tax shall not be established until the date of the determination of the change in the amount of income under Article 142 of the Income Tax Act (if the above obligation to withhold income tax is not established, it shall be deemed that the above obligation to withhold income tax is not established until the date of the determination of the change in the amount of income under Article 148 of the Income Tax Act, and it shall be deemed that the above provision of the Income Tax Act does not exist until the date of the determination of the change in the amount of income under Article 14 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the plaintiff shall not be deemed to have an obligation to withhold the above provision for the amount of income tax payment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which is premised on the above amount of withholding, is without merit, and thus, it shall be dismissed. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-ro, Kim Jong-ho