Seoul High Court 2009Nu20429 (2010.04.07)

early 208west0581 ( October 31, 2008)

Appropriateness of the disposition that excludes funeral expenses deduction, spouse deduction, and lump sum deduction by deeming the decedent as non-resident.

In light of the occupation, property status, Canadian citizenship acquisition process, and residence, family and living relationship of children belonging to Canada at the time of commencement of inheritance, etc., the inheritee cannot be deemed to be a resident on the ground that some adult children reside in Korea at the time of commencement of inheritance, and some adult children reside in Korea.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

쇠지지지지 3000 물은은은은은은 3000 아은은은은은은은은은 3000 아은은은은은이 3000 아은이 아은은이 3000 아은이 300202020 8171

쇠지지300 쇠지지지 3000 지지지 3000 쇠鹬 KimA external5

쇠지지300 쇠지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지

Article 300 Zu 3000 Zu 3000 Zu 3000 Zu 3000 Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu20429 decided April 7, 2010

쇠은은 개은은 개은은은 3000 개은은은 3000 아은은은이 이 3000 개이 이 3000 개이 30010.

44 44 44 44 44 45 44 444 64 44

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

쇠鹬 쇠鹬 3000 쇠鹬 3000

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 1 (1) 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter "the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") provides that "a person who has a domicile in the Republic of Korea or has a domicile in the Republic of Korea for not less than one year" shall be determined by considering whether a person has a domicile in the Republic of Korea or not, as a whole, objective facts of living relationship, such as whether a family living together in the Republic of Korea and assets located in the Republic of Korea, whether a family living together with a foreign nationality or a person who has a permanent residence in a foreign country, whether a family living together in the Republic of Korea is recognized as having a domicile in the Republic of Korea and mainly in the Republic of Korea (Article 2

The court below rejected the above assertion on the plaintiffs' assertion that the deceased Kim YB's deceased KimB's deceased's deceased's deceased's deceased's deceased's deceased deceased's deceased living as a family member living together with the deceased's 2G deceased's deceased's living. The "family member living together with the deceased" means the unit of living with the same living expenses. According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff Kim Y's deceased's deceased's deceased will and ability to engage in economic activities independently and only received some subsidies from KimB's deceased's deceased living expenses. It can not be viewed that the plaintiff Canadian's deceased's Canadian's Canadian's Canadian residents acquired the right of permanent residence and used the same living expenses for the same period of time as KimB's deceased's 10th day after January 1, 202. The court of first instance rejected the above assertion on the grounds that the plaintiff 1's Canadian's Canadian's 2G deceased's Canadian's 20th day of death.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is justified and it cannot be found that there is a violation of the rules of evidence or a violation of the legal principles as asserted in the grounds of appeal in the process of fact-finding or judgment. The Supreme Court decision which is invoked in the grounds of appeal is inappropriate to be invoked in this case, as it differs

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Dan 300 Mau300 Mau 3000 Mau Mau3000 Mau3000

4. 4.2.2.2.2. 1.2. 1.2. 2.2: 1. 1.2. 1.2. 2.: 1.2. 2.: 2.2. 2.2.: 3.2. 2.2.

Justices Yinu300 Mau300 Mau3000 Dolam Dol-Dol-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is

Justices Yinu300 Mau300 Mau3000 Dol-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-