2. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 36,840,160 (including additional tax) and global income tax of KRW 38,453,60 (including additional tax) for the year 2011 for the Plaintiff on March 1, 2016 shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The reasons for this part are as follows. This part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 2 to No. 7 of the second reasons). Thus, this part of the reasoning is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○○, for the second reason, "O. 10. 0. 10. 209" was "O. 19. 2009. 19. 2009. 4.5 billion won", and "The 10. 4.5 billion won out of the 7. billion won was actually prepared."

○ Part 2 of Schedule 2, "XOOOOOOOOOOOO" has been cut up to △OOOOOOOOOOOO.

Pursuant to the third page, the "payment and notification" in the third column shall be written with "determination and notification", and the "10, 14" in the sixth column below the table shall be written with "10, 11, 14".

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) In order to be lawful in the instant disposition, it should be clear that the key expenses were incurred from the outflow of the company and reverted to the Plaintiff. Of the key expenses, the portion used as the medical expenses of the Plaintiff’s wife and the portion temporarily used as the school expenses of the ASEAN is not out of the company, and the remainder of the key expenses is not clear.

2) The Plaintiff does not constitute a resident under the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12852, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same) in the taxable year 2011 and 2012. Even if the Plaintiff falls under a resident under the former Income Tax Act, the Plaintiff constitutes a resident under the U.S. tax law and thus, the Convention between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and the Encouragement of International Trade and Investment (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty”) shall apply. The Plaintiff constitutes a resident of the United States of America in accordance with the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty. Accordingly

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) Key expenses are used by both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s family regardless of their duties in light of the details of use, timing, place, etc., and are reverted to the Plaintiff.

2) The Plaintiff is not only a resident under the former Income Tax Act in the taxable year 2011 and 2012, but also a resident in the Republic of Korea, as the central place of interest is in accordance with the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty.

3) Even if the Plaintiff is not a domestic resident under the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty, under Articles 119, 120 and 121 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 2013), in the case of a nonresident having a domestic place of business, a global income tax liability shall be imposed by aggregating domestic source income, such as the amount disposed of as other income pursuant to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act, in the case of a nonresident having a domestic place of business. As such, DoDD substantially controlled and managed by the Plaintiff may be deemed the Plaintiff’s domestic place of business and its domestic place of business is also established

C. Whether key expenses belong to the Plaintiff

1) Facts of recognition

The reasons why this Court is stated are as follows: (a) the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (b) the reasons for the judgment are as stated in Chapters 14 through 5, 16, and 20 to 6, 200 (i) through 8) under the third table of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (i.e., “(a)” or “(h)”; (c) the Administrative Litigation Act Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; (d) the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

After the last 20th page of the fourth 4th 20th m. "(However, the payment part of the above school expenses is not included in No. 10-2) the defendant is the basis of the disposition of this case."

The ○○ 5th sentence “1 or 12,” and the 16th sentence “Submission,” respectively, shall be made with the appearance of “1 or 8,” and the statement to the same effect as the witness was made in this court.

The fact-finding results of No. 26 of the 5th parallel 20 to 6th parallel 1 of the 5th parallel 20, "the fact-finding results of the fact-finding evidences No. 28, Gap evidence No. 29 through 77, 206, Gap evidence No. 44-1 through 8, Eul evidence No. 7, 8, Eul evidence No. 10-1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 11, and 12-1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 13, 14, 20 through 24, Eul evidence No. 25-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 26, testimony of FF witness of the trial, and fact-finding results of the fact-finding at the court of first instance."

2) Determination

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that, except for the modification as follows, the reasons for this decision are as stated in the 6th to 7th 19th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.g

○ 6. 5 to 7, “The dispute card is recognized to ............................” The dispute expenses are confirmed to have been used regardless of the work of DDD within the area that can be reverted to the Plaintiff, such as the Plaintiff’s wife, children, or their children, etc., as follows:

○ 제6쪽 제12행의 맨 뒤에 "(원고는 원고의 처 III의 치료비도 '의료비 하이패스제도'를 이용하여 납부한 것일 뿐 쟁점 카드 중 JJ카드를 실제로 소지하면서 사용한 것이 아니라는 취지로 주장하나, 을 제10호증의 3, 4, 6의 각 기재에 의하면, JJ카드OOOO에 의하여 2010. 9. 15. HH대본원 외래수납이 있기 약 35분 전에 'HH대병원 KKKK'에서 결제가 이루어진 사실, JJ카드□□□□에 의하여 2010. 12. 9. LLLL대학교병원 결제가 이루어진 후 곧이어 'XXXXXXXXXXXX병원점'에서 결제가 이루어졌고, 2011. 1. 10. HH대본원 외래수납이 있은 지 약 25분 후에 'HH대병원 KKKK'에서 결제가 이루어졌으며, 2011. 3. 14. LLLL대학교병원 결제가 수회 이루어지는 중간에 'XXXXXXXXXXXX병원점'에서 결제가 이루어졌고, 2011. 8. 27.에는 GGG대학교의과대학부속병원 결제가 이루어진 후 10분 정도 지나 위 병원 인근 'MM'이라는 옷가게에서 결제가 이루어진 사실, JJ카드XXXX에 의하여 2011. 2. 23. GGG대학교의과대학부속병원 결제가 이루어진 후 8분 정도 후에 위 병원 인근 'NNN약국'에서 결제가 이루어진 사실이 인정된다)"를 추가한다.

After the last 20th of the sixth 20th page, "(the plaintiff has not disclosed in detail what kind of work it is in the U.S. at the U.S. point anywhere, while working in any form)" shall be added.

○○ No. 9-10 of the 7th page “The name thereof shall not be .....” was written with the phrase “within the extent that, in light of its scale, it would normally be recognized as welfare expenses normally included in the calculation of losses.”

○ 7 pages 11 to 14 are deleted, and 15 are "ma".

D. Whether the Plaintiff is liable to pay global income tax on the ground that it falls under a resident under the former Income Tax Act and a domestic resident under the Korea-U.

1) Facts of recognition

A) Residence, etc. of both the Plaintiff and their families

- The plaintiff, around 200, moved to the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as the "US"), along with wife III, ZOO (1989 birth), and ASEAN (191 birth), and both the plaintiff and their families have resided as permanent residents of the United States (hereinafter referred to as the "U.S."), (at least the point of initial acquisition of permanent sovereignty is not clear, but at least since 2007 all permanent residents have been permanent residents).

- The Plaintiff’s wife III received cancer diagnosis in around 2008 and received domestic treatment. The period during which the III resided in Korea after January 1, 2008 to February 23, 2008, from February 2008 to August 22, 2008, from November 30 to September 30, 2009; and from October 11, 2009 to September 14, 201 (III died on December 14, 201).

- Meanwhile, the period during which the Plaintiff was staying in Korea after January 9, 2008 to January 18, 2008; January 22, 2008 to January 7, 2009; July 8, 2009 to July 22, 2009; October 11, 2009 to October 25, 2009; December 23, 2009 to May 25, 2010; and March 24, 2010 to May 25, 2010 (the date of departure from Korea).

The period of stay of the Plaintiff’s O on April 6, 2008 to April 13, 2008; from June 20 to August 22, 2008; from January 15, 2008 to January 14, 2009; from May 14, 2009 to August 23, 201; from January 20, 201 to December 20, 201; from May 20, 2009 to December 23, 2019 to December 24, 201; from May 20, 201 to May 3, 201; from May 20, 201 to September 24, 201; from May 9 to September 20, 2010 to December 1, 201 to December 21, 201 to 3.1.6, 2010

- All of the Plaintiff’s family members’ living expenses were borne by the Plaintiff.

B) The Plaintiff’s domestic assets

- As real estate owned by the Plaintiff in the Republic of Korea, OO-dong O-dong O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O(O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O(O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O (O-O.

C) The Plaintiff’s assets and economic activities

- The plaintiff has a house (OOOOOOO, OOOO) and a vehicle in the United States, and has been residing in the above house since 2006.

ㆍ 원고는 2000년경 미국으로 이주한 이후 미국 OOOOO주에서 설립된 법인인 Q.Q.Q QQQQQQ Corporation(2000년 총자산 약 62만 달러였다가 점차 감소하여 2008년 총자산은 0으로 되어 있다, 이하 'QQ'이라 한다)과 RRRRRRR RRRR Corporation(2005년부터 2008년까지 총자산이 약 103~104만 달러 수준이었으나 2009년 총자산은 161달러이다, 이하 'RRRRR'라 한다)을 운영하는 등의 경제활동을 하면서 2000년부터 2016년까지 미국에 소득세를 신고ㆍ납부하여 왔다.

- According to the Plaintiff’s income tax return, the Plaintiff’s income subject to taxation included 85,409, 2000, 121, 789, 2001, 53,328, 203, 58, 753, 2004, 37,463, 205, 28,268, 39, 429, 29, 29, 2913, 207, 19,161, 208, 2009, 276, 11, 7770, 2010 to 2015.

D) Plaintiff’s activities related to DDR

- EEE, represented by the Plaintiff, owns 100% of the shares of the SS (EE acquired the shares of the SS and registered as a foreign-capital invested company in accordance with the Foreign Investment Promotion Act), and the SSS owns 100% of the shares of the DDR. At the time of its incorporation into a company jointly incorporated by the shareholders of the RCR, EE constitutes 17.5% of the shares of the Plaintiff, 7.5% of the Plaintiff’s CCC, 13.5% of the Plaintiff’s CCC, 13.5% of the Plaintiff’s 13.5%, U.S., 15%, 521.5%, and W 25% of the shares, and thereafter W’s entire shares were transferred to X, its husband, and 8.5% of the shares of T were transferred to Y.

- From February 2010 to August 2013, the Plaintiff continued to contact the FF, telephone, or e-mail, which served as the representative director of DDDD from February 2, 2010, and, when DD temporarily requires DD funds, has been involved in the management of DD, such as deposit of DD funds through SS, and repayment of DD funds (the deposit of DD funds was made mainly until the first half of July 201). The FF also prepared a letter of confirmation that DD’s corporate reduction on July 6, 201 should be used after obtaining the Plaintiff’s approval.

- The Plaintiff did not have any official status, such as the representative director, in DD, nor did it receive the benefits regularly from DD except for using the issue card (the fact that the Defendant was identified as the Plaintiff’s global income at the time of the instant disposition is limited to the key expenses).

-2. Meanwhile, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition, including acquisition tax, against the Plaintiff, since the Kim Sea Market is not the EEE but the Plaintiff was designated as the second taxpayer of the SSS, it is reasonable to see that the Plaintiff is not the Plaintiff but the EEE, and the person who actually controlled and managed the stocks of the ES is not the Plaintiff, and there is insufficient evidence to support the denial of legal personality of the EEE or the actual reversion of the stocks of the EE under the name of the EEE, the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff became final and conclusive (Seoul District Court Decision 2016Guhap50622 decided September 27, 2016; Supreme Court Decision 2016Nu1714 decided November 22, 2017; Supreme Court Decision 2017Du73402 decided March 15, 2018).

- The plaintiff additionally submitted a confirmation of the fact that "the plaintiff is holding stocks by investing in the EEE, prepared in the name of T, U, V, Y, and X, which is another shareholder of the EEEE in the trial (which was prepared from October 22, 2015 to October 24, 2015, as it verified the identity of the originator by the OOOOO owner notary public)."

- Among the ESE or the Plaintiff, etc., a lawsuit for confirmation of existence of a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of SSS, a lawsuit for attorney's subrogation payment claim, a lawsuit for confirmation of shareholders' rights of DRD stocks, a lawsuit for objection against an executory certified copy of a notarial deed, a lawsuit for refund of purchase price, a lawsuit for claim for compensation for damages, etc. is pending or pending in the Republic of Korea since 2011.

- Meanwhile, the sales of DD were approximately KRW 24.1 billion in 2010, and approximately KRW 28.4 billion in 201, and assets were about KRW 26.9 billion in 2010 and approximately KRW 26.6 billion in 2011.

(e) Other

- Meanwhile, according to the relevant judgment, the Plaintiff invested the acquisition fund of the ZZ (OOOO Co., Ltd. prior to the change) in the time similar to the investment in the KRD, and participated in the management thereof (Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na20301, Aug. 27, 2015).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 4, 13, Gap evidence 14-1, 2, Gap evidence 19, 25, Gap evidence 29-1, 83, 183, 184, 227, 245, 255, Gap evidence 4-1 through 9, Gap evidence 57, Gap evidence 58-1 through 5, Gap evidence 60-1 through 17, Gap evidence 61-1 through 4, Gap evidence 62-1 through 65, Gap evidence 63 through 65, Gap evidence 67-1 through 67-1, Gap evidence 68, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 2-1, evidence 3-1, evidence 7, evidence 1-2, evidence 7, evidence 1-2, evidence 3-1, evidence 7, evidence 7-1, evidence 1-2, evidence 7-1, evidence 7-1-2, evidence 7

2) Whether the Plaintiff is a resident under the former Income Tax Act

A) Article 1-2 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act provides that "a resident means a person who has a domicile in Korea or has a domicile in Korea for at least one year," and Article 2 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26067, Feb. 3, 2015) provides that "a domicile under Article 1-2 of the Income Tax Act shall be determined based on objective facts of his/her living relationship, such as the existence of a family living together in Korea and of an asset located in Korea." In determining whether a person is a resident under the former Income Tax Act, it shall be determined in light of his/her living relationship, such as a family relationship or an asset held in Korea, and it shall not be determined based mainly on his/her living relationship, such as activities outside Korea and asset holding in Korea (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

B) First, in the case of the taxable year 2011, the following facts revealed in the facts recognized earlier, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff’s wife III, a family member living together with the Plaintiff, was staying in the O apartment owned by the Plaintiff, from January 1, 2011 to December 14, 2011; and (ii) the Plaintiff’s OOOO and ASEAN were staying in the Republic of Korea for 197 days and 153 days respectively (in light of the time, the period seems to be the substitutional vacation period); and (iii) the Plaintiff owned substantial real estate in the Republic of Korea including the O apartment, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was a resident under the former Income Tax Act as a person who has a domestic address in the taxable year of 2011 and was a resident under the former Income Tax Act.

C) Next, according to the above facts of recognition for the taxable year 2012, the Plaintiff still owned considerable real estate in Korea, but did not stay in Korea. Unlike the previous year, the Plaintiff’s family member was staying in Korea only for 92 days from May 31, 2012 to August 30, 2012, and the Plaintiff was considerably involved in the management of DDD, but it was not formally a representative director or receiving regular allowances. In full view of these circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff is a resident under the former Income Tax Act as a person with a domestic address in the taxable year for 2012.

3) Whether the Plaintiff is a U.S. resident under U.S. tax law

According to Article 701 (b) of the U.S. Tax Law, where the Government of the U.S. legitimately has obtained permanent residence from the Government of the Republic of Korea or at least 31 days in the current year, and where the sum of the number of days of stay in the current year, 1/3 of the number of days of stay in the previous year, and 1/6 of the number of days of stay in the previous year before the previous year is at least 183 days, it shall be deemed that the resident of the U.S. is a resident of the current year. As seen earlier, in the taxable year 2011 and 2012, the fact that the Plaintiff is a permanent resident of the U.S. is the resident of the U.S. is deemed as mentioned above, and the number of days of stay in each taxable year can be confirmed as at least 183 days in each taxable year, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff

4) Whether the Plaintiff is a domestic resident under the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty

A) Article 3(2) of the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty provides for the criteria for determining the resident status in cases where a certain individual is a Korean resident for the purposes of Korean tax and is a U.S. resident for the purposes of U.S. tax. As seen earlier, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff is a resident in the taxable year of 2012. However, the Plaintiff’s resident status under the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty is examined on the premise that both the Plaintiff and the U.S. resident in the taxable year of 2011 and 2012

B) In Article 3(2) of the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty, both Korea and the United States are subject to taxation.

적상 거주자인 경우의 거주지국 판정 기준으로 ① 그가 주거(permanent home)를 두고있는 체약국의 거주자로 간주되고, ② 양 체약국 내에 주거를 두고 있거나 어느 체약국에도 주거를 두고 있지 아니하는 경우에는 그의 인적 및 경제적 관계가 가장 밀접한 체약국(중대한 이해관계의 중심지)의 거주자로 간주되며[that Contracting State with which his personal and economic relations are closest(center of vital interests)], ③ 중대한 이해관계의 중심지가 어느 체약국에도 없거나 또는 결정될 수 없을 경우에는그가 일상적 거소(habitual abode)를 두고 있는 체약국의 거주자로 간주되고, ④ 양 체약국 내에 일상적 거소를 두고 있거나 또는 어느 체약국에도 거소를 두고 있지 아니하는 경우에 그가 시민(citizen)으로 소속하고 있는 체약국의 거주자로 간주되며, ⑤ 양 체약국의 시민으로 되어 있거나 또는 어느 체약국의 시민도 아닌 경우에는 체약국의 권한있는 당국이 상호 합의에 의하여 해결하도록 규정하고 있고, 제3조 제2항의 목적상 주거는 '어느 개인이 그 가족과 함께 거주하는 장소(the place where an individual dwells with his family)'를 말한다고 규정하고 있다.

(C) Therefore, first, we examine the residence of the Plaintiff under the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty (hereinafter “Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty”). (1) In interpreting the tax treaty between OECD member states, “the place of residence” is a place where an individual owns or owns the house. Here, house refers to a place where an individual owns or maintains the house for permanent use, i.e., an individual’s house for permanent use, and on the contrary, a specific place where a family member resides under the condition that he/she is not an intention to use the house. However, the composition of the residence is essential for an individual to use it as reference material in the interpretation of the tax treaty between the OECD member states, and the head of the OECD member states, “the place of residence” means a port where the individual resides in his/her house for short-term use (including a detached house or apartment house owned or leased by him/her, or a house) and a place where the individual resides in his/her house can be considered as a place of residence for the purpose of education under the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty. Tax Treaty. Constitution.

(2) In light of the above facts, even if the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Defendant, appears to have permanently resided in the United States during the taxable year 201 and 2012, the Plaintiff is deemed to have been holding a permanent residence in the Republic of Korea. The Plaintiff is deemed to have been holding a permanent residence in the United States during the above period as the representative of the EEEE, a U.S. corporation, and continued to stay in his own house in the United States while processing DDD affairs by telephone and e-mail, and the Plaintiff’s children were staying in the Republic of Korea (197 days in the year 2011, in the case of Plaintiff OO, 153 days in the year 201, in the case of Plaintiff CCC, 92 days in the year 2011, in the case of Plaintiff CCC). Thus, during the above period, the Plaintiff

D) Next, we examine the Plaintiff’s central interest in Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty.

(1) In the 15th session of Article 4 of the OECD Model Tax Convention, the term "central interest interest center" means a center of personal or economic relationship, and the family and social relationship, occupation, political, cultural and other activities, and the place of property management shall be considered comprehensively.

(2) 살피건대, 위 인정사실에서 나타나는 다음과 같은 점, 즉 원고는 2011, 2012 과세연도에 국내에 상당한 부동산을 보유하고 있었고, 공식적인 임원은 아니었고정기적인 급여를 지급받은 것도 아니나 이른바 '회장'으로서 DDDDD의 대표이사 FFF와 지속적으로 연락하면서 DDDDD의 운영자금이 부족할 경우 실질적으로 가수금을 조달하는 역할을 하는 등 DDDDD의 경영에 구체적으로 관여하였으며, DDDDD 이외에 다른 국내 기업에도 실질적으로 투자하여 경영에 관여한 것으로 보이는 점, 위 기간 동안 원고는 그 이전에 운영했던 QQ이나 RRRRR, 그리고 당시 운영하던 EEEEE 등의 미국 법인으로부터는 실질적인 소득을 얻지 못한 것으로 보이는 점에 DDDDD의 매출과 자산 규모 등을 종합하여 보면, 원고는 위 기간에 비록 국내에 직접 체류하지는 아니하였으나 국내에 상당히 중요한 경제적 관계를 형성하고 있었다고 볼 여지가 있다.

(3) However, in light of the following circumstances revealed in the above facts, i.e., the Plaintiff’s continued possession of a house in the U.S. during the taxable year of 201 and 2012, and the Plaintiff’s children can be viewed as maintaining a living relationship after moving to the U.S. around 2000; the Plaintiff’s children in the year of 2011 and the period of half, OO appears to have been staying in the U.S. in the year of 2012; CCC appears to have been staying in the U.S.; the Plaintiff’s participation in DD’s management is not entirely deemed to have participated in the Plaintiff’s individual position; and in principle, EE is deemed to have participated as the representative of EEE that owns 100% of the stocks of DD through SSS. Considering that EE is a corporation established in the U.S.O.O., it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s personal, economic relationship and economic relationship between the Plaintiff was formed in the U.S.

(4) Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s central place of interest in the taxable year 2011 and 2012 falls under a case where the central place of interest cannot be determined.

E) Next, examining where the Plaintiff had a usual residence in the taxable year 2011 and 2012, the fact that the Plaintiff appears to have basically continued to stay in the U.S. without having entered the Republic of Korea at all during the aforementioned period is as seen earlier. As such, the Plaintiff’s ordinary residence in the taxable year 2011 and 2012 is the United States.

F) If so, the Plaintiff is a resident of the United States who had a permanent residence in both Korea and the United States in the tax year 2011, 2012 under the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty, since it is impossible to determine whether the Plaintiff had a significant interest.

5) Sub-committee

Therefore, the Plaintiff is not liable to pay global income tax as a domestic resident in the tax year 2011, 2012.

E. Whether the Plaintiff is liable to pay global income tax on domestic source income as a non-resident with a domestic place of business

1) Article 119 subparag. 12 (h) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 2013) provides that the amount of income disposed of as other income pursuant to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act shall be one of the domestic source income of a nonresident. Article 120 subparag. 1 and 120 subparag. 2 provides that where a nonresident has a fixed place, such as a branch office, office or place of business, a place of business, a factory, or a warehouse, all or part of his/her business in the Republic of Korea, a domestic place of business shall be deemed a domestic place of business. Article 121(2) provides that a nonresident having a domestic place of business pursuant to

2) However, this part of the defendant's assertion is premised on the fact that the plaintiff is a non-resident with the above domestic place of business, and in full view of the shareholder composition of the EEE, the relationship between EEEE, SSS and DDD revealed in the above facts, it is difficult to regard DD as a domestic place of business of the plaintiff's individual, and according to the evidence No. 29-38, it is recognized that the business office of EE has been established in Korea, but it is difficult to view the domestic place of business of EE as a domestic place of business of the plaintiff's individual for the same reason, and therefore, the defendant's above argument cannot be accepted without the need to further determine.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case shall be accepted with the reasons, and since the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal shall be accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the disposition of this case shall be revoked as per Disposition

1) 12. Subparagraph a) means, therefore, that in the application of the Convention (that is, where there is a conflict between the laws of the two States) it is considered that the residence is that place where the individual owns or possesses a home; this home must be permanent, that is to say, the individual must have arranged and retained it for his permanent use as opposed to staying at a particular place under such conditions that it is evident that the stay is intended to be of short duration.

13. As regards the concept of home, it should be observed that any form of home may be taken into account (house or apartment belonging to or rented by the individual, rented furnished room). But the permanence of the home is essential; this means that the individual has arranged to have the dwelling available to him at all times continuously, and not occasionally for the purpose of a stay which, owing to the reasons for it, is necessarily of short duration (travel for pleasure, business travel, educational travel, attending a course at a school, etc.).

2) 15. If the individual has a permanent home in both Contracting States, it is necessary to look at the facts in order to ascertain with which of the two States his personal and economic relations are closer. Thus, regard will be had to his family and social relations, his occupations, his political, cultural or other activities, his place of business, the place from which he administers his property, etc. The circumstances must be examined as a whole, but it is nevertheless obvious that considerations based on the personal acts of the individual must receive special attention. If a person who has a home in one State sets up a second in the other State while retaining the first, the fact that he retains the first in the environment where he has always lived, where he has worked, and where he has his family and possessions, can, together with other elements, go to demonstrate that he has retained his centre of vital interests in the first State.