Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap3255 (Law No. 97.02)

early 208west0581 ( October 31, 2008)

Appropriateness of the disposition that considers the person under custody as non-resident and excludes funeral expenses deduction, spouse deduction, and lump sum deduction.

Considering the occupation, property status, Canadian citizenship acquisition process, and residence, family, and living relationship of children belonging to Canada at the time of the commencement of the inheritance of this case, the decedent cannot be viewed as a resident on the ground that some of adult children reside in Korea at the time of commencement of the inheritance of this case.

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

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The disposition of imposition of KRW 394,322,886 against the plaintiffs on November 13, 2007 by the defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following matters, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the

A. Article 2 (4) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "Article 2 (4) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act" shall be deemed "Article 2 (8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act."

(b) Forms 6 through 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

Therefore, the term "family members who share the same livelihood" under Article 2 (4) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act means the unit of living in the same daily life (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3826, May 23, 1989), and the above evidence and evidence Nos. 16, 26, 28-1, 2, 7, and 7-1 of the evidence No. 7, comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of the oral argument, KimD and the plaintiff Kim E-E, its wife, were residing in 145-8, 604, 11, 604, 200, 200, 30, 200, 40, 200, 200, 20, 200, 40, 200, 20, 20, 30,000, 200, 40, 196, 20, 4, 198.

However, even if the plaintiff KimB asserted that he had resided in the above 'AB' before the above divorce, from April 25, 2002 to February 16, 2004, that he had resided in the above 'AB', it is not sufficient to recognize the above 'AB's health, Gap 29 to 34, Gap 35-1 and 35-2', and the testimony of the court below KimF, and the court below's GaB's GaB's Gab's Gab's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol's Dol'Dol's Dol's 28.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed because they are without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and all of the plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.