(a) Requirements for disposition of income belonging to the representative of the company from the company;

(b) Time when income is reverted to and when withholding taxes are made in disposition of income;

A. According to the relevant provisions of the Corporate Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, a corporation’s income, which is the tax base of corporate tax, was reported by the corporation, or the government was leaked out of the company, even if the income generated from the determination or correction of the corporate tax was leaked, it can be attributed to the representative only when the ownership of the outflow income is unclear. Therefore, if it is verified that such income was reverted to a third party such as a creditor, etc., it

B. Article 57 (5) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10120 of Dec. 31, 1980) provides that the period of attribution of the outflow income shall be any of the business years in which the income of the corporation is attributed. However, where the income is subject to the source collection, it is deemed that Article 198 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the corporation pays the income as of the date of receipt of the notice of change in the income amount.

(a)Article 32(5) of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 94-2(1)(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Articles 57(5)3 and 198(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu587 delivered on March 22, 198 (Gong1988,704) 90Nu222 delivered on September 28, 1990 (Gong1990,2210) 90Nu6163 delivered on July 23, 1991 (Gong1991,2262) B. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu323 delivered on October 28, 1986 (Gong1986,3143) 85Nu775 delivered on February 24, 197 (Gong1987,554) 90Nu4631 delivered on February 26, 191 (Gong108)

[Defendant-Appellee] The Head of the Dongmmmm Chemical Corporation, Inc., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Head of Dong Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu4046 delivered on April 17, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party company organized the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 had the obligation to withhold taxes from the year 1977 on May 31, 1980, by way of the change of non-party 1's non-party company's non-party company's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's loan claim amounting to 3,518,508,290. When the above non-party 1 filed a lawsuit for confirmation of non-existence of the obligation against the company in 1983 and the above judgment became final and conclusive upon winning the lawsuit for confirmation of non-existence of the obligation, the defendant included the above claim as processed asset and disposed it as bonus against the non-party 3 who is the representative director at the time the above judgment became final and conclusive, and imposed the duty to withhold taxes on the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's representative director who received the notice of change in the income amount.

However, according to the relevant provisions of the Corporate Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, even if the income of a corporation which is a corporate tax base was reported or the government was leaked out of the company, it can be attributed to the representative only if it is unclear that the income accrued from the company's decision or correction is attributed to the third party such as the creditor, etc., the income should be disposed of as other income or other outflow of the company according to the person to whom it belongs. On the other hand, with regard to the period of accrual of the outflow of income, Article 57 (2) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10977 of Dec. 31, 1982), Article 57 (5) 3 and (9) proviso (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10120 of Dec. 31, 1980) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10120 of Dec. 31, 1980).

If a part of the amount of the claim in this case is counted as a processed amount, as stated in the judgment below, the court below should have determined whether it is reasonable for the defendant to have accrued income equivalent to the processed amount of the processed amount to the representative at the time of the final judgment on default of obligation by clarifying the person to whom the income accrued and the time of attribution of the processed amount of the processed amount of the claim. Accordingly, the court below's decision that the withholding obligation cannot be established only on the ground that the representative who should have accrued income at the time of notification of change in the amount of income was retired from the corporation is erroneous by misunderstanding the legal principles on the disposal of income, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust all necessary matters, failing to exhaust all necessary reasons, failure of reasoning, failure of judgment, failure of judgment, etc., and the judgment of the court below is not reversed

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)