주민등록표상 거주기간에 실제 거주하였다고 인정하기 어려움[국승]
Suwon District Court 2012Guhap5092 ( October 10, 2012)
Early High Court Decision 201J 4948 ( October 22, 2012)
It is difficult to recognize that a resident actually resided in the resident registration card.
The provision providing that the period of one house for one household shall be the period under the resident registration card shall be only for the convenience of proof, and the purport that the recognition of the residence shall only be based on the entry in the resident registration card, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff actually resided in light of the Plaintiff’s family and workplace relationship, and circumstances leading to changes in the entry in the resident registration card.
2012Nu33128 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
United StatesAAA
Head of Sungnam Tax Office
Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap5092 Decided October 10, 2012
May 1, 2013
June 5, 2013
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. A port consumption shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
3. On the part of the plaintiff's indication in the first instance judgment, the "AA" shall be corrected to "AA".
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on September 1, 201 rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on September 1, 201 shall be revoked.
1. cite the judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff actually resided in the apartment of this case, such as the resident registration card, which was transferred from January 2, 2006 to another place from January 23, 2007, who transferred the move-in to a mixed person's apartment of this case from his family members to another place. However, the provision of Article 154(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which stipulates that the period of one house of one household subject to non-taxation shall be the period from the full date of transfer to the full date of transfer under the resident registration card, is merely for the convenience of proof, and it cannot be deemed that the recognition of the fact of residence should be based solely on the entry in the resident registration card. In light of the plaintiff's family and workplace relations, and circumstances leading to changes in the entry in the resident registration card of this case, the plaintiff cannot be accepted.
2. Conclusion
"The first instance judgment is justified. The appeal filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. The first instance judgment's "OOO" in the plaintiff's indication was erroneous in the United StatesAA, and it is corrected."