Article 15 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act which provides that the resident registration card shall comply with the resident registration card when calculating the number of months of residence for one household.

The purport of Article 15 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Article 5 (6) (i) of the Income Tax Act, and Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, stipulating that the number of months of residence of one household who is exempt from taxation pursuant to Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be calculated by the number of months from the date of transfer to the date of transfer under the resident registration card is merely for the convenience of proof

Article 5 of the Income Tax Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu218 delivered on July 12, 1983, 84Nu194 delivered on September 11, 1984

Plaintiff

Director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu1078 delivered on November 6, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the defendant litigation performer are also examined.

According to Article 15 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Article 5 (6) (i) of the Income Tax Act and Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the number of months of residence of one household who is exempt from taxation pursuant to Article 15 (1) of the same Act shall be calculated by the number of months from the date of transfer to the date of transfer from the date of transfer under the resident registration card. However, this is not merely a provision for the convenience of proof, and the purport that the recognition of

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff's wife, his wife, and his wife continued to reside in the house of this case on April 15, 1978 with his wife, his wife and his wife until they were transferred to the non-party on September 29, 1979, and that the plaintiff's resident registration card was transferred to the house of this case on September 20, 1979, but it is not reflected in the plaintiff's residential relation as it is. The court below's determination that the plaintiff's residential relation was not reflected in the facts of the plaintiff's residential relation. In light of the records, the court below's determination is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the evidence preparation, and as long as the plaintiff's residential relation was recognized, the transfer income of the house of this case constitutes non-taxable income under Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act and Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged.

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 Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)