[종합소득세부과처분취소][공1987.7.15.(804),1095]
The criteria for determining "resident living together as a resident living together" in Article 80 (1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act;
According to Article 80 (1) (2) of the Income Tax Act, as a requirement of cumulative taxation on global income, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the period of the taxable year concerned and the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the resident's domicile must determine whether the resident's domicile is a person living together.
Articles 80 (1) and 80 (2) of the Income Tax Act
Supreme Court Decision 83Nu44 delivered on April 26, 1983, 82Nu248 delivered on March 13, 1984, 85Nu194 delivered on November 26, 1985
[Judgment of the court below]
The director of the tax office
Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu338 delivered on November 10, 1986
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
According to Article 80(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act, the requirements for global income tax shall be determined based on whether the resident’s domicile is actually living in one household and is living together (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu248, Mar. 13, 1984).
The court below held that the above non-party is not a family member living together with the plaintiff at the end of 1980 after graduating from the university around May 1981 after the non-party was married to the university at around the end of 1984. However, when returning to the Republic of Korea around March 1983, the non-party was living independently with the plaintiff after he was enrolled in the △△△△△△△ Dong, Gangnam-gu ( Address 1 omitted) in Gangnam-gu (Seoul) in Seoul and was living independently from the plaintiff on July 1984 after he was enrolled in the UK with the thickness of the married couple on August 1983 (employment 1 omitted) and the head of the non-party was living in the Gangnam-gu (Seoul branch office in △△dong, Seoul), Seoul (Status 2 omitted) △△dong, and there is no error in the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to global income facts, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts finding of facts.
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 Man-hee (Presiding Justice)