Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-51719 ( January 11, 2017)

Since the center of the Plaintiff’s significant interest is Indonesia, the Plaintiff is a resident in Indonesia;

Under Article 4 (2) of the Korea-Indonesia Tax Treaty, when comparing the size of business in the two countries, the scale of income, the number of days of stay, etc., the intention is the center of important interests of Indonesia, and thus, it is a resident of

2017Nu3431 Global income and revocation of disposition

IsaA

BB Director of the Tax Office

June 28, 2017

August 16, 2017

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1 Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 25,331,130 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), global income tax of KRW 41,364,290 for the year 2008, global income tax of KRW 113,83,580 for the year 209, global income tax of KRW 128,92,230 for the year 2010, global income tax of KRW 70,828,270 for the year 2011, global income tax of KRW 61,43,470 for the year 201, and global income tax of KRW 37,559,620 for the year 209 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court to state with respect to this case are as follows:

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act;

It shall be quoted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

○ The 4th page 19 "Witness" shall be regarded as a "witness of the first instance trial".

○ up to 11 pages 1 to 2 under the 9 table shall be dried up as follows:

[3] Determination

A) First, from 2007 to 2013, the taxable period of this case revealed in the above facts of recognition

In full view of the Plaintiff’s wife*, son*, son*, son*, ASEAN* domestic residence period, Plaintiff’s transfer of living funds, operation of business in Korea, and real estate, etc. possessed by the Plaintiff and his wife in Korea during the above period, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff constitutes a resident with his domicile in Korea under the Income Tax Act even though the number of days of his stay in Korea during the above period is 39 days average per annum.

B) On the other hand, according to Eul evidence No. 8, Article 2(3) of the Income Tax Act of Indonesia

In light of the number of days during which the plaintiff was staying in Indonesia for the above period, the plaintiff is also a resident taxpayer under the Income Tax Law of Indonesia for the above period. The plaintiff is also a resident taxpayer under the Income Tax Law of Indones for the above period. The plaintiff is also a resident taxpayer under the income tax law of Indonesia for the above period.

C) However, as the Plaintiff, domestic residents and at the same time are residents in Indonesia.

With respect to cases where an individual becomes a resident of both Contracting States under Article 4(2), the "Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia" (hereinafter referred to as the "Tax Treaty") provides that the status of the individual shall be considered as a resident of the Contracting State having a permanent residence available to him/her, and the personal and economic relationship shall be considered as a resident of the Contracting State more closely closely connected (referring to a heavy interest), and that where a Contracting State with a major interest is unable to determine the Contracting State with which he/she is able to use or where a Contracting State has no permanent residence available to him/her, he/she shall be considered as a resident of the Contracting State with a usual interest. According to the above facts, the plaintiff shall be deemed as a resident of the Contracting State with which he/she is able to use his/her domestic and Indonesia for the above period, in the sense that he/she has prepared and maintained house for continuous use at any time," in terms of interest between the plaintiff.

D) Therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes a resident in Indonesia under the instant tax treaty.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.