2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant on November 1, 2014, the global income tax of 000 won (additional tax) for the global income tax of 2010 on the Plaintiff.

(including) revoke the disposition of imposition.

A. The Plaintiff, as a permanent resident of AA in 2010, obtained financial income of 000 won from domestic financial institutions, including ○○○○○ (hereinafter “instant financial income”). However, the pertinent financial institution withheld income tax on the instant financial income, and the Plaintiff did not file a separate global income tax return.

B. On November 1, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing global income tax ○○○○ (including additional tax) for the global income tax for 2010, on the ground that “the Plaintiff has resided in the Republic of Korea for at least one year, and the Plaintiff continuously owns real estate in Korea, and thus constitutes a resident under the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10408, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same)” on the following grounds: (a) the instant financial income subject to separate taxation as a non-resident was added to global income for 2010.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 24, 2014, but was dismissed on February 24, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s stay in the Republic of Korea from 2009 to 2012 is not based on the intention or purpose of moving the basis of life to the Republic of Korea, but on the inevitable grounds of the Plaintiff’s and his spouse’s treatment and recuperation. The Plaintiff’s number of days of stay in the Republic of Korea in 2010 is merely 102 days, and the Plaintiff’s number of days of stay in the Republic of Korea is not a resident under the former Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On June 4, 1982, the resident registration was cancelled due to the departure from the Republic of Korea on April 12, 2004, the Plaintiff was re-registered ex officio on April 12, 2004. On the same day, ○○○○○-ri, ○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, 65-2, and the householder: ○○: the Plaintiff’s mother-friendly BB on April 4, 2012. Then, the Plaintiff transferred the resident registration to ○○, ○○, 103, ○○, ○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○, ○○”) (hereinafter referred to as “multi-family”) again on October 25, 2012, and completed the Jeju-si Partnership on the same day.

2) On September 6, 2013, the Plaintiff’s wife acquired a nationality of the Republic of Korea and completed a new resident registration to ○○○○ on the same day.

3) On September 28, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for 1208 ○○ apartment 103 Do-dong 1406 on November 20, 2003 with respect to 1203 Do-dong 1208 Do-dong 1406, and on 19 March 19, 2014 with respect to ○○ apartment 103 Do-dong 763 Do-dong 103 Do-dong 103 Do-dong Do-dong on February 11, 2010. The Plaintiff acquired each of ○○○○○○○ ○ ○ 600 Do-dong - on January 3, 2011, and on June 13, 2012.

4) The number of days of stay in Korea of the Plaintiff is as listed below.

(unit: Won)

Classification

Immigration Year

209

2010

2011

2012

2013

The year

22

26

214

210

318

2 Taxable Period

448

424

2 Taxable Period

440

528

5) The Plaintiff received outpatient treatment at ○ University Hospital on June 2009, 5, 2010, and 3, 2011. The Plaintiff’s wife received outpatient treatment at the above hospital on April 2009, 6, 2010, and 6,011. On November 9, 2009, the Plaintiff was hospitalized and discharged on the 21st day of the same month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 17, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) The term "resident" means an individual who has a domicile in Korea or has a domicile in Korea for not less than one year (Article 1-2 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act); a domicile shall be determined on the basis of objective facts in his/her living relationship, such as the existence of any family living together in Korea and any assets located in Korea [Article 2 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26067, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply]; where an individual living in Korea has an occupation that requires him/her to continue residing in Korea for not less than one year, if he/she has a family living in Korea and is deemed to have a domicile in Korea for not less than one year (Article 2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act).

The term "place of residence" means a place where a person has resided for a long time besides his/her domicile and in which no close general living relationship is formed as the address (Article 2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act), and the period of his/her residence in Korea shall be from the day following the date of his/her entry to the date of departure. However, if an individual who has his/her residence in Korea enters Korea again after departure and the purpose of departure is clearly deemed to be temporary in light of his/her residence or the location of assets, etc., the period of departure shall be deemed to be the period of his/her residence in Korea (Article 4(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act). If the period of his/her residence in Korea is one year or more for two taxable

2) We look back to the instant case, i.e., the following circumstances revealed by adding the purport of the entire pleadings to the factual relations as seen earlier, i.e., ① the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○ and apartment 】 22 days in 209, 226 days in 2010, 214 days in 201, 210 days in 20, and 318 days in 2013. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had a domestic residence for 2 years in 20 years in 20 years in 20, and 200 days in 20 years in 20 years in 20. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had a domestic residence x 10 years in 20 years in 20 years in 20 years in 20 years in 20 years in 30 years in 20 years in 20 years in 200 in 20 years in 30 years in 20 years in 2013.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.