해외취업으로 가족과 함께 해외장기 출국하였다 하더라도 거주자에 해당하여 비과세 적용됨[국패]
Examination transfer 208-0234 ( December 23, 2008)
Even if overseas employment had left Korea with his family for a long time, it constitutes a resident and is subject to tax exemption.
At the time of the transfer of a house, there were families living together in Korea, most of the assets in Indonesia, and have been staying in Korea for a certain period of time each year without acquiring the local nationality or acquiring the permanent residence right, and managing assets in Korea, and thus, the basis of living is maintained in Korea, so it constitutes a non-taxation
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 147,008, and 830 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2008 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
It is the same as the disposition.
1. Details of the disposition;
가. 원고는 1985. 11. 18. 서울 ◇◇구 ◇동 901 ◇◇▢▢▢▢아파트 제124동 제 103호(이하，'이 사건 주택'이라 한다)를 취득하였고, 2003. 7. 7. 박☆☆으로부터 서울 강남구 ◇◇동 654 ▢▢아파트 제209동 제502호(이하，'신규주택'이라 한다)를 취득하였다.
B. The Plaintiff transferred the instant house on August 27, 2003, and did not report and pay the transfer income tax under the judgment that the transfer of the instant house is subject to non-taxation because it falls under the temporary transfer of two houses by one household. However, the Defendant was exempt from the application of Article 155 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18127, Nov. 20, 2003; hereinafter the same), on the ground that the Plaintiff was a nonresident residing in Indonesia from September 5, 1989, and thus is not subject to non-taxation for two houses temporarily for one household. On September 1, 2008, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff KRW 147,08830 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).
(c) On October 16, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for the disposition of this case, but was dismissed on December 23, 2008.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfed Facts, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1, Evidence No. 2-2, Evidence No. 1-1, 2-2, purport of the entire pleadings
2. Whether Doz u300 u3000 is legitimate in the disposition of this case
A. The plaintiff's assertion
원고는 인도네시아 현지에 취업을 한 관계로 1989. 9. 5. 가족들과 출국하여 현재까지 인도네시아에 체류하고 있으나, 이 사건 주택의 양도 당시 위 주택을 비롯한 전재산을 국내에 보유하고 있었고, 가족 모두가 국내에 연금보험 등 금융저축을 계속 해오 고 있었으며, 매년 해외취업에서 얻은 수입의 80% 이상을 국내에 송금하여 저축 또는 세금, 자녀의 생활비, 학자금 등에 사용하여 왔으나, 국내 재산이나 예금 이자 등이 인도네시아 현지로 송금된 적이 전혀 없었고, 국내에 귀국할 의사를 가지고 취업조건이 불리한 것을 감수하면서 매년 1년 단위로 근로기간을 연장해 오고 있었으며, 아들인 한△△은 2001. 10. 14. 영구 귀국하여 대학을 다니다가 공익근무요원으로 군 복무까지 마쳤고, 딸인 한❒❒도 대학 입학을 위하여 귀국할 예정에 있으므로, 원고는 국내에 생계를 같이하는 가족이 있고 그 직업 및 자산상태에 비추어 다시 입국하여 국내에 거주 할 것이 예상되어 소득세법 및 같은 법 시행령 소정의 거주자에 해당한다. 따라서 이 사건 주택의 양도는 일시적 1세대 2주택의 상태에서 양도한 것으로서 구 소득세법 시행령 제155조 제1항에 따라 양도소득세가 비과세됨에도 불구하고, 이와 달리 원고가 비거주자에 해당한다고 보고 한 피고의 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.
(b) Related statutes;
It is as shown in the attached Form.
(c) Fact of recognition;
(1) The plaintiff acquired the house of this case on November 8, 1985 and resided for not less than two years until December 8, 1988, and worked for the management consulting company located in Indonesia on September 5, 1989, and is living in the area of the present.
(2) According to the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the said Indonesia management consulting company, if no separate notice is given by 60 days prior to the expiration of the term of work, the term of work shall be automatically extended every one year. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has extended the term of work every one year.
(3) At the time of transfer of the instant house on August 27, 2003, the Plaintiff, together with a new house, has owned or held the following financial assets with family members in Korea.
(4) 원고의 아들인 한△△은 2001. 10. 14. 귀국하여 2002. 3. 2.부터 2005. 9. 5.까 지 건국대학교 수의과대학에 재학하였다가, 2006. 3. 1.부터 ▣▣대학교 ▣▣▣부에 입학하여 재학하던 중 2007. 1. 31. 군에 입대하여 2009. 3. 30.까지 공익근무요원으로 복무를 마쳤다.
(5) 원고의 딸인 한❒❒은 현재 인도네시아 현지에서 고등학교 재학 중이나 귀국 하여 미술대학에 입학할 것을 생각하고 2005. 12. 26.부터 2006. 1. 26.까지, 2007. 12. 22.부터 2008. 1. 17.까지, 2008. 12. 19.부터 2009. 1. 23.까지 각각 국내에 체류하면서 미술학원에서 미술 실기를 수강하였다.
(6) In the annual salary ($ 60,000) received from the above management consulting company, the Plaintiff has transferred most of the annual salary ($ 60,000), excluding the local living expenses, to the payment of financial assets that are paid in Korea, property tax, comprehensive real estate tax, interest income tax, resident tax, etc. of new houses, and the tax and public charges such as the ASEAN △△△△
(7) 원고는 위와 같이 인도네시아 현지에 취업을 한 이후로도 여전히 국내에 보유하고 있는 재산의 관리 등을 위하여 꾸준히 매년 짧게는 10일에서 많게는 53일 정도 까지 국내에서 체류하여 왔고, 원고의 처인 권○경, 딸 한❒❒도 주민등록을 말소하지 않은 채 인도네시아 현지에 거주하면서 아래와 같이 이 사건 주택의 양도 시점을 전후 로 매년 평균 25일 정도 국내에 체류하였다.
(8) The Plaintiff extended the labor contract with the local company in Indonesia only until December 31, 2009 in order to take account of his wife and domestic university entrance and to return home. On November 1, 2008, the Plaintiff returned 350,000,000 won to the new lessee of the house on November 1, 2008, and had the △△△△△△ located and reside therein.
[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 17 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 6, the purport of the whole theory
D. Determination
(1) A resident under the Income Tax Act refers to a person who has a domicile in the Republic of Korea or has a domicile in the Republic of Korea for not less than one year. In determining whether a person who has a domicile in the Republic of Korea is a person who has a domicile in the Republic of Korea, an objective intention of living relationship should be comprehensively determined, such as whether a person has a family living together in the Republic of Korea, whether a person has a property in the Republic of Korea, whether a person has a foreign nationality or not.
(2) As shown in the above facts, although the plaintiff had been employed in Indonesia and had his family members enter the Republic of Korea for a long period of 14 years until the time of transfer of the house of this case, the plaintiff had been staying in the Republic of Korea for 10 days each year, but the plaintiff had an intention to return home and had 10 days shorter than 53 days shorter each year for the management of the assets in the Republic of Korea. The plaintiff was staying in the Republic of Korea on October 14, 2001, and 1) had 0 days more than 10 days less than 10 days less than 10 days less than 10 days ago, and 1) had 0 days more than 10 days more than 3 days more than 0 days more than 10 days more than 10 days more than 3 days more than 10 days more than 2 days more than 3 days more than 3 days more than 10 days more than 2 days more than 3 days more than 3 days more than 0 days more than 3 days more than 0 days more than she had acquired domestic assets and 3 years less than she had acquired domestic assets and 1, us.
(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case based on the premise that the Plaintiff was a nonresident at the time of transfer of the instant house is unlawful.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is reasonable, and this decision is delivered with the decision of citing this case.