1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows: Gap evidence No. 10, which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion that "technical allowances" should be paid as wages as additional evidence submitted at the trial; and the defendant's argument at the trial is as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following determination as to the following arguments, so it shall be cited as it is by applying the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant paid 5,308,670 won as income tax and local income tax for the unpaid benefits during the period of dismissal of the plaintiff, and paid 2,785,950 won as national pension premium, 2,610,240 won as health insurance premium, long-term care insurance premium, 170,840 won as long as it is long-term care insurance premium, 508,320 won as employment insurance premium, and 11,384,020 won as unpaid wages for the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) The obligation to pay the withholding income tax is, in principle, established when the amount of income is paid and the time when the recipient’s obligation to pay is established. Thus, the payer cannot collect and deduct the source tax in advance before the said amount of income is paid, and the scope of income itself cannot be said to be reduced to the amount of the source tax (see, e.g., Article 21(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Supreme Court Decision 94Da23180, Sept. 23, 1994). In particular, in order to generate the income, it is unnecessary until the income is realized.

Even if there is a dispute over the existence or scope of the claim between the payer and the beneficiary, it is clear that such dispute is given the nature of the case.