Revocation of a disposition rejecting retirement income tax refund;

The nature of excessive withheld tax amount and the determination of the national tax refund under Articles 51(1) and 52 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes or the decision of refusal to refund shall not be subject to appeal litigation.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Daejeon District Court Decision 2000Gu2670 Delivered on February 2, 2001

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not in dispute between the parties, or may be acknowledged in accordance with the whole purport of each entry and pleading set forth in Gap evidence 1-1 to 59:

가. 원고를 포함한 별지 목록 기재 선정자들은 ㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇ연구원에 근무하다가 구조조정에 따른 인력 감축계획에 따라 1998. 6. 30. 퇴직하였다.

나. ㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇ연구원은 1998. 6. 30. 선정자들에 대하여 퇴직급여지급규정에 의한 퇴직금과 별도로 명예희망퇴직장려금(이하 이 사건 명예퇴직장려금이라 한다)을 지급하였는데 선정자들에 대한 1998년도 귀속 근로소득세를 원천징수함에 있어 선정자들이 퇴직하면서 지급받은 이 사건 명예퇴직장려금을 근로소득에 해당하는 것으로 보고 이를 근로소득에 포함시켜 근로소득세를 원천징수한 후 피고에게 납부하였다.

C. On May 31, 199, the designated parties requested the Defendant to refund the withheld amount to the Defendant, while the instant honorary retirement subsidy was withheld even though it was not the earned income to be withheld as it was included in the retirement income.

D. Accordingly, on July 2, 1999, the Defendant rejected the above application for refund by the designated parties on the ground that it was lawful to withhold the labor income tax by deeming the above honorary retirement subsidy to be a wage and salary income since it constitutes a wage and salary income not a retirement income.

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit

In principle, a tax law relationship exists between a withholding agent and a tax office, and between a withholding agent and a tax office, there is no tax law relationship bilaterally except that where a withholding agent has paid a withheld tax to a tax office (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Nu177, Feb. 14, 1984). Even if a withholding agent erroneously withheld an excessive earned income, in such a case, the right to claim the refund of the overpaid collected tax amount belongs to the withholding agent, and the source taxpayer has no right to claim the refund against the withholding agent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu6412, Nov. 14, 1989). Thus, even if the Defendant refused the application for refund of the designated person without a right to claim the refund, it cannot be deemed a disposition subject to appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.