(a) The case holding that, although a worker submitted a resignation and carried out a form of resignation or resignation after receiving retirement allowances, his/her expression of resignation contained in the employee's or retirement allowances is null and void as it is not a serious declaration of intention, and that the labor contract cannot be deemed terminated upon the termination of the contract, and that the same applies even if the employee received retirement allowances, on the ground that the company took the form of accepting the declaration of intention to retire;

(b) Where a recipient of income does not establish a source tax liability, the nature of the payer’s obligation to withhold taxes (negative);

C. Whether the payer may collect and deduct the source tax prior to the due date of the income amount (negative), and whether the scope of the income subject to withholding tax reduces as a matter of course the source tax amount (negative)

(d) The method by which a withholding agent may withhold income tax, etc. where he/she orders the withholding agent of income tax, etc. to pay retirement allowances not deducted;

(a) The case holding that even though a worker was employed in a park but was employed in the form of resignation or resignation after the worker submitted the resignation and received the retirement pay, such expression of intent was null and void because of the company's knowledge of it, and it cannot be said that the labor contract with the company was terminated and terminated on the ground that the company received the declaration of intention of retirement, and that the same applies even if the worker received the retirement pay.

B. The fact that the payer of the income amount under the Income Tax Act bears the obligation of withholding is premised on the recipient’s source tax liability, and the case where the recipient’s source tax liability is not constituted, the payer’s obligation of withholding cannot be established.

C. The obligation to pay income tax withheld under Article 21(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is, in principle, established when the amount of income is paid, and the time when the recipient’s obligation to pay the income tax is established is also the same. Therefore, the payer is unable to collect and deduct the source tax prior to the time of payment of the above amount of income, and the scope of income itself is the income subject to withholding, and it cannot be said that the scope of income is reduced by the source tax as a matter

D. In a lawsuit, where the withholding agent of the income tax, etc. orders a payment of retirement allowance which has not been deducted from the withholding agent of the income tax, the withholding agent will be required to withhold the income tax, etc. at the stage of payment of the retirement allowance as determined by the judgment, and if the recipient of the income refuses to receive the retirement allowance after deducting the withholding tax amount, it will be required to deposit the payment. This would not violate Article 182(1)

A. Article 107 of the Civil Act, Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. Article 21(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 21(d) of the Income Tax Act, Articles 149 and 182(1) of the same Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Da13222 delivered on May 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 1723), 92Da3809 delivered on July 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 2363), 92Da21036 delivered on August 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 267). (d) Supreme Court Decision 91Da38075 delivered on May 26, 1992 (Gong192, 2001), 86Nu323 delivered on October 28, 1986 (Gong1986, 3143). Supreme Court Decision 87Nu407 delivered on September 27, 198 (Gong198, 198, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 208Da184889 delivered on September 28, 1984).

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Hong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na11577 delivered on October 2, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, even though the plaintiffs were employed in the defendant company as a park and received retirement allowances after submitting the resignation source and received the retirement allowances, they were found to have contained in the plaintiff's resignation or retirement allowances, it is null and void because the defendant company was aware of it, not the truth, and the plaintiffs continued to serve until the date of the retirement in this case, and the court below's disposition that recognized that the plaintiffs continued to serve until the date of the retirement in this case is just and acceptable, and there is no misunderstanding of the legal principles such as the illegality or the theory of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da1322 delivered on May 24, 191), and the precedents of the theory of lawsuit are not appropriate in this case.

In addition, it does not affect the outcome of the instant case whether the Defendant Company received a decision to adjust the collective agreement by the government authorities in amending the collective agreement, and even if the Plaintiffs were to receive benefits such as theories while retired in the form of form, it cannot be recognized that the labor contract relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Company was severed.

Therefore, there is no reason to dispute from the opposite position.

With respect to the second and third points

In light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below cannot be deemed to be unlawful as it violates the rules of evidence, and there is no error of law in incomplete deliberation. According to the court below's finding, the plaintiffs' expression of retirement in the middle of the retirement under the circumstances as stated in its reasoning is not a true declaration of intention, and the defendant company is also aware of it, and thus is null and void. Thus, the labor contract with the defendant company cannot be deemed to have been terminated and terminated on the ground that the defendant company received the declaration of retirement under the circumstances stated in its reasoning

In addition, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the evidence No. 1-2 and No. 3-2 of the evidence No. 1-2 in its fact-finding or in the violation of the rules of evidence, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the expression of intention, not the truth, in the judgment of the court below.

There is no reason for the issue.

Concerning Nos. 4, 5, and 6

1. The fact that the payer of the income amount under the Income Tax Act bears the obligation to pay the withholding tax on the premise that the recipient’s obligation to pay the withholding tax is a premise for the recipient’s obligation to pay the withholding tax, and thus, the payer’s obligation to collect the source tax on the income tax withheld under Article 21(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes cannot be established in a case where the recipient’s obligation to pay the withholding tax is not established. In principle, the obligation to pay the withholding tax on the income tax withheld under Article 21(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is established at the time of paying the income amount, and the corresponding recipient’s obligation to pay the withholding tax is also established at the time of the establishment of the recipient’s obligation to pay the withholding tax. Thus, the payer is prohibited from collecting the source tax prior to the payment date of the above income amount, and the scope of income per se is the income subject to withholding tax, and the scope of income per se, cannot be said to be reduced to the amount of the source tax as a matter of course.

2. Therefore, the court below's order ordering the defendant to pay a retirement allowance which has not deducted the withholding tax in this case cannot be deemed to be unlawful. In this case, the defendant should withhold the income tax at the stage of paying the retirement allowance after the decision of this case became final and conclusive. If the plaintiffs refuse to receive the retirement allowance after deducting the withholding tax amount, the repayment deposit will be made, and such doing cannot be deemed to violate Article 182 (1) of the Income Tax Act.

Although there is an inappropriate part of the judgment of the court below in this part, the decision is just, and the decision of the lawsuit is not appropriate in this case.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be deemed to contain incomplete deliberation or misunderstanding of the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason for discussion.

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

Justices Choi Young-young (Presiding Justice)