Suwon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-71540 ( March 31, 2016)

overseas workers, even if they are overseas workers, shall be residents in Korea.

In full view of the facts that it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff constitutes a resident under the former Income Tax Act in 2011, which is the taxable year of this case, when the Plaintiff has an occupation that requires the Plaintiff to continue residing abroad for 1 year or longer.

Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Determination of Residence

2016Nu6349 and revocation of the detailed global income and disposition

Park ○

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Guhap71540 Decided August 31, 2016

February 1, 2017

February 22, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of global income tax of KRW 403,172,250 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on June 10, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

"403,172,250 won" for the second reason shall be added to "403,172,250 won" for the second reason.

○ The 5th page 17 to 6th 10 pages are as follows.

In full view of the following circumstances, i.e., (i) even if the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the non-party company around August 30, 2007 and worked in the non-party company until around 2015, the Plaintiff was working for the extension of the contract on an annual basis with the non-party company; (ii) the Plaintiff was registered as a resident in the apartment owned by the Plaintiff in Korea with his spouse in the instant taxable year; (iii) although the Plaintiff was ordered to make a business trip from the non-party company, it was 8 days having less than 5 days of entry into the instant taxable year; (iv) 23 days having less than 23 days of stay in the instant taxable year; and (v) from 2007 to 2010, 62 days to 20 days in Korea, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay income tax is closely related to the above income subject to subparagraph 2 of Article 2(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree.

In addition to the above facts, the following circumstances revealed as a whole, i.e., the plaintiff's spouse staying in Korea for 353 days, and the plaintiff's children were staying in Korea for most annual periods, ② since the plaintiff's spouse moved in an apartment house owned by the plaintiff on January 7, 2008, the plaintiff's spouse maintained his resident registration until now, and the plaintiff's spouse continued to live in Korea, and the plaintiff was living in Korea, and there was a stable living space for the plaintiff's family member in Korea. ③ The plaintiff was working in Kuwait, and was provided with local vehicles and lodgings from the non-party company. The plaintiff did not acquire tangible assets, etc. within Kuwait as a basis for living, while the plaintiff did not have acquired real estate assets, etc. within 20 years, and the plaintiff transferred most income acquired from Kuwait from the plaintiff's family member after being registered in Korea as a rental business operator for 20 years, and the plaintiff's real estate was used for 20 years after being registered in Korea.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.