2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

A. The Plaintiff obtained each dividend income of KRW 370,948,817 in the year 2005, KRW 413,167,400 in the year 2006, and KRW 711,653,187 in the year 2007 (hereinafter “instant dividend income”). The Plaintiff obtained interest income of KRW 120,159,346 in the year 2006, as a shareholder of ○○○○○○○ 41,00, a mutual savings bank with its principal office in 415-71, and obtained the interest income of KRW 120,159,346 (hereinafter “instant interest income”).

B. The Plaintiff filed a comprehensive income tax return for each of the instant dividends, interest income, etc. in 2005, 2006, and 2007, respectively.

C. On October 8, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant dividend and interest income constituted a resident of New Zealand and a non-resident under the Income Tax Act, and filed a request for correction against the Defendant for the refund of the total income tax attributed to the year 2005, 2006, and 2007 as stated in the above purport of claim, but the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the said request for correction on the ground that the Plaintiff fell under a resident under the Income Tax Act on December 12, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, 1-2-1, 2-1, 3-2-1, 1-4, 2-2-1, 1-4, 2-1, 2-3, 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is not a resident of the Republic of Korea at the following point:

(I) The Plaintiff has been living together with his family in New Zealand since 1997, and the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea, but this is merely a travel purpose, which is not a domestic resident.

(2) Even if the Plaintiff is a domestic resident, the Plaintiff is a resident of both Korea and New Zealand. Since the Plaintiff is a resident of the Republic of Korea and the Government of New Zealand under the Convention between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of New Zealand for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income (hereinafter referred to as the “Tax Convention of this case”), the “permanent residence” as prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 4(2) is placed in New Zealand, the Plaintiff shall be deemed a resident of New Zealand in accordance with the said provision.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Family relationship, etc. of the Plaintiff

(A) On October 24, 1997, the plaintiff (the plaintiff on September 28, 1953) left New Zealand with both his/her spouse, KimA (the birth on December 25, 1954), HanB (the birth on February 7, 1981), and HanCC (the birth on March 10, 1983). The resident registration was cancelled on March 3, 199, and the Korean resident registration was completed at the Korean Embassy stationed in New Zealand on December 199. The plaintiff, KimA, and Han-B are permanent residents of New Zealand; the plaintiff, KimA, and Han-B are citizens of New Zealand.

(B) On December 21, 2002, the Plaintiff reported ○○○○○○○-dong 1685 to the place of residence in Korea.

(C) The Plaintiff had repeatedly entered and departing from Korea, 70 days in 2003, 109 days in 2004, 130 days in 205, 102 days in 2006, 83 days in 2007, and 30 days in 2008. The status of entry and departure between the Plaintiff and the wife KimA from 2005 to 2008 are as follows.

(2) The plaintiff's economic activity

(가) 원고는 1989. 12. 4.부터 현재까지 ○○ □□구 ▶▶동 607-1 등을 사업장소재지로 하여 부동산임대업을 영위하였고, 2005년에는 167,697,988원의, 2006년에는 125,199,652원의, 2007년도는 206,179,775원의 각 임대수입을 얻었다.

(B) From July 14, 1997 to May 29, 2007, the Plaintiff was employed as a representative director or director as a major shareholder of Dok Dok (37.4%) with its head office in Korea, and received wages. In 2005, 39,408,000 won, 39,308,000 won in 2006, and 16,836,800 won in 2007, respectively.

(C) From August 29, 2000, the Plaintiff is serving as a director or in-house director of △△ mutual savings bank, a stock company, from August 29, 2000.

(D) On November 29, 2006, the Plaintiff purchased 834 ○○○○ Do, Dong-dong, Do-dong, Do-dong, Do-dong, Do-dong, Do-dong, 102 2001.

(E) Meanwhile, in New Zealand, the Plaintiff has operated a real estate rental business without any particular occupation with his spouse, and paid income tax, property tax, etc. accordingly. The Plaintiff asserts that the amount of income has not been calculated on the basis of the amount of income earned in Korea (the Plaintiff claimed that, through the real estate rental business in New Zealand, the Plaintiff obtained income of 13,223 NZ$ in 205, 2006, 75,547 NZ$ in 2006, and 321,139 NZ$ in 207).

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, entry of Gap 3's evidence 1, 2, Gap 4, Gap 5's evidence 1, 2, Eul 3-8 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(I) Legal principles

In determining whether an individual has a domicile or residence in the Republic of Korea, the determination should be based on a comprehensive consideration of the family relationship, assets, etc. in the Republic of Korea. However, even if an individual falls under a taxpayer under the domestic income tax law because he/she has a domicile or residence in the Republic of Korea, the determination should not be made by taking into account whether he/she is the taxpayer of income tax, etc. under the foreign law. If the individual becomes a taxpayer of income tax in a foreign country because he/she has a domicile or residence in the Republic of Korea, or if he/she falls under a taxpayer of income tax, etc. under the foreign law, he/she may be imposed double taxation on one income. Thus, in order to exclude this, a separate provision is established through the conclusion of a tax agreement among the countries, and if it is acknowledged that he/she is the taxpayer of a foreign country claiming that he/she is a domestic resident at the same time as the above dual resident, if it is determined that the individual is the taxpayer of a foreign country claiming that he/she is the taxpayer of the country in Korea, the overlapping tax treaty arises (see, e.

(2) Whether the person is a domestic resident

In light of the facts revealed in the above recognition, the size of each real estate rental income in Korea and New Zealand, the size of domestic earned income, the number of domestic earned income and the period of sojourn, the existence of the place of residence reported in Korea and the owner, and the relationship between the Plaintiff and New Zealand with respect to the interest income in this case, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff is a resident in Korea under the Income Tax Act, since the place where the Plaintiff’s living is based, i.e., the address is located in Korea.

(3) Status of dual residents

(A) However, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff is a resident under the New Zealand Act, as seen earlier, while residing in New Zealand with his wife and her own consciousness while leaving New Zealand, and is liable to pay rental income. As such, the Plaintiff is a dual resident of both countries. Accordingly, it is determined whether the Plaintiff is a resident of Korea or New Zealand, as stipulated in the instant tax agreement.

(B) As to the determination of the status of an individual of both Contracting States, Article 4(2) of the Tax Convention provides that the individual shall be deemed to be a resident of the Contracting State having a permanent residence that he/she can use. If the individual has a permanent residence that he/she can use in both Contracting States, he/she shall be deemed to be a resident of the Contracting State having his/her human and economic relationship (in the case of a permanent residence that he/she may use, the center of the largest interest). In full view of the circumstances described in the above paragraph (d) and (d)(3) above, it appears that the Plaintiff has a permanent residence available to the Republic of Korea and New Zealand, and thus, the latter part of Article 4(2)(a) of the Tax Convention shall be applied, and it is reasonable to view that the Republic of Korea is a significant interest center in light of the Plaintiff’s main economic area and size. Therefore, the Plaintiff is a resident of Korea, and therefore, Chapter 2 of the Plaintiff is not well-grounded.

[원고는 '항구적 주거'의 개념과 관련하여 이 사건 조세협약에서는 그 규정이 없고, 대한민국과 미합중국간의 소득에 관한 조세의 이중과세 회피와 탈세방지 및 국제무역과 투자의 증진을 위한 협약 제3조 제(2)항 제(e)호에서 항구적 주거는 어느 개인이 그 가족과 함께 거주하는 장소를 말한다(For the purpose of this paragraph, a permanent home in the Place where an individual dwells with his family). 라고 규 정하고 있는데, 위 규정은 '항구적 주거'에 대한 통상적 개념에 해당하므로, 원고가 그 의 처와 자식들과 함께 거처하고 있는 뉴질랜드를 원고의 '항구적 주거'지로 보아야 한다는 취지로 주장하나, 위 협약에서 규정한 '항구적 주거'라는 개념이 통상적인 개념으로 이 사건 조세협약에도 같이 해석 적용되어야 한다는 주장은 일방적 주장에 불과하여 이를 받아들일 수 없다.]

(4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the disposition of this case on the premise that the plaintiff is a domestic resident is legitimate.

3.In conclusion

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