A family member living together under Article 80 of the Income Tax Act;

If a plaintiff who has been registered as a resident together with a divorced mother has transferred his/her resident registration along with his/her domicile whenever he/she moves his/her domicile, the mother and child shall be deemed to have living together with his/her father unless there is evidence of the assertion that the plaintiff had resided in his/her domicile together with his/her father, and therefore, it is reasonable to impose global income tax and defense tax by adding up the income of two persons.

Article 80 of the Income Tax Act

Plaintiff

The Director of Gangnam District Office

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The imposition of global income tax of KRW 1,681,601 against the Plaintiff as of August 16, 1981 and of KRW 303,409 shall be revoked.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

According to the whole purport of entry and pleading as Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3 (each decision), Gap evidence 4 (the resident registration card copy, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2 (Cumulative income register), and Eul evidence 1-4, the plaintiff's employment income for non-party 1 corporation shall be 3,60,829 won for 1980, 60, 470, 67, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 160, 97, 200, 360, 360, 47, 196, 360, 97, 97, 10, 2, 97, 2, 1

On July 4, 1973, the above non-party 2 was divorced from the plaintiff's father and non-party 3. The plaintiff was living in Samsungdong 45, A, and D 2 apartment complex (dong and lake omitted) which is the above non-party 3's domicile, and only the resident registration was living in the above non-party 2's domicile. Thus, although the plaintiff and the non-party 2 do not fall under the non-party 2's living living together with the above Article 80 of the above law, the defendant's imposition of the income tax of this case in accordance with the above Article 80 of the above law is alleged to be erroneous. Thus, according to each of the above evidence Nos. 3 and No. 4 of the above law, the above non-party 2 and the non-party 3 were divorced since they moved to the plaintiff plaintiff's plaintiff's father at once, and the plaintiff was found to have transferred his domicile each time with the above non-party 2 and there was no evidence that the plaintiff's testimony of this case was different from the witness No. 4.

Therefore, the plaintiff and the above non-party 2 should be deemed to be living together with the above evidence No. 4 as a mother and a person living together. As such, it is reasonable to impose the plaintiff's global income tax and defense tax on the plaintiff under the circumstances acknowledged by the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Young-chul (Presiding Judge)