Even if he/she temporarily stays overseas for child education, if he/she has a living ground in Korea, the resident;

Even if a resident temporarily stays overseas for the purpose of education for children at the time of disposal of stocks, the resident's spouse was in the Republic of Korea and maintained his/her livelihood abroad as the income of his/her spouse was in the Republic of Korea, and the resident is in Korea

Article 2 of the Income Tax Act

2014Gudan58795 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

June 12, 2015

June 26, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 2008 on April 1, 2014 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 28, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired ○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “instant shares”) from ○○○○○○○, by exercising the preemptive right of △△△△△, a registered corporation of the KOSDAQ, by means of the acquisition of ○○○○, a corporation.

B. From May 2, 2008 to July 10, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred the instant shares on the KOSDAQ market to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, but did not report the transfer income tax.

C. On April 1, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax of 00 ○○○○○○○○ in 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul 1, the purport of the whole argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff, around June 2007, left Korea with her husband DB and her child, and resided in Singapore until January 30, 201, the Plaintiff does not constitute “when there is an occupation ordinarily required to reside in Korea for at least one year” under Article 2(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) or when there is a family living together in Korea or when it is deemed that she will continue to reside in Korea for at least one year in view of her occupation and property status.” Rather, at the time of the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant shares, the Plaintiff constitutes “when a foreign nationality or a person who has obtained her foreign permanent residence under the foreign laws and regulations, who has no family living in Korea, and is not recognized to have been residing in Korea in view of her occupation and property status, and thus, there is no obligation to pay capital gains tax under the Income Tax Act.”

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff left Korea with his children around June 2007 and resided in Singapore until January 30, 201, and returned to Korea.

2) Meanwhile, on March 3, 2006, the Plaintiff and saltB received 1/2 shares of 1/2 from each of the ○○○○○○○○○○○, Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment building (hereinafter “instant apartment building”). Since the relocation into the instant apartment on December 17, 2003, saltB did not have any changes in the address until now, and the Plaintiff returned to the Republic of Korea on January 30, 201, and thereafter has the address in the said apartment building.

3) The number of days of stay in Korea between the Plaintiff and saltB is as follows.

2007

208

209

2010

2011

176 Date

42 days

49 days

68 Date

329 days

DeB

232 days

259 days

266 days

315 Date

326 Date

4) The Plaintiff and saltB’s major assets held in Korea are as follows.

Plaintiff.

Classification

Name

Area / Quantity

Ratio of Shares

acquisition

Transfer

Jinay

Real estate

The apartment of this case

150.33С

1/2

206

No. 50,000

Emergency Heads

Stocks

A

29,980 Shares

1.99%

205

209

B

1,600 Shares

0.02% by mass

206

2007

C

50,000 Shares

208

2010

D

238,000 Shares

17%

2010

2013

E

155,606 Shares

1.2% by mass

2012

Listing

Stocks

F

4,194,711 note

9.9% by mass

208

209

The shares of this case

G

7,427,858 Shares

4.9% by mass

209

2010

H

429,261 note

0.7% by mass

209

2010

I

426,000 Shares

0.8% by mass

209

2012

J

1,200 Shares

0.03% by mass

209

2011

K

303,766 note

3.3% by mass

208

2010

saltB

Classification

Name

Area / Quantity

Ratio of Shares

acquisition

Transfer

Jinay

Real estate

The apartment of this case

150.33С

1/2

206

Domination from father

Gyeonggi within the scope of competition

1,908С

200

Forest land

Emergency Heads

Stocks

L

24,010 Shares

9.6% by mass

205

208

M

30,000 Shares

7.5% by mass

206

209

N

30,000 Shares

100%

201

O

20,000 Shares

0.38% by mass

201

Membership

P

201

2007

Q Q

209

2012

5) The Plaintiff’s domestic income status is KRW 17,064,00 in 2006, KRW 1,249,439,00 in 208, KRW 1,446,321,00 in 209, KRW 1,031,890,000 in 2010, KRW 29,401,000 in 207, and KRW 753,295,000 in 208, KRW 47,046,00 in 209, KRW 32,556,000 in 2010.

6) The Plaintiff received 23 cases in 2007, 2008, 4 cases in 2008, 3 cases in 2010, 14 domestic health insurance benefits in 201, 34 cases in 2007, 7 cases in 2008, 21 cases in 2009, 15 cases in 201, 33 cases in 201.

7) The Plaintiff had no special occupation during the period of residence in Singapore, and the Plaintiff lived with saltB as the money coming from Korea.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul 3 to 12, purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

Article 2 (3) and (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall not apply to cases where a person is deemed to have an address in Korea or where a person is deemed to have no address in Korea, and ultimately, the address under the Income Tax Act shall be determined based on objective facts of living relationship, such as the existence of a family living together in Korea and of assets

The Plaintiff’s husband saltB resided in most of the Republic of Korea and obtained considerable income. The Plaintiff’s living expenses were appropriated for saltB’s living in Singapore once in Korea, so it can be deemed that there exists a family living together with the Plaintiff in Korea. The Plaintiff himself/herself has a considerable property and income in Korea, the Plaintiff did not dispose of the instant apartment at the time of departure from Singapore, the Plaintiff was living in the instant apartment after return, and the Plaintiff’s living behavior as recognized earlier, etc. are deemed to be a resident under the Income Tax Act. The instant disposition is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.