In a case where Party A, the representative director of Indonesia company A, constitutes a domestic resident in accordance with the Income Tax Act and the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, the head of the competent tax office determined that Party A was a resident of the Republic of Korea in accordance with Article 4(2) of the said Treaty, on the grounds that it constitutes a defect in the imposition of global income tax for the year 2011 through 2016, Party A was dissatisfied with and filed an objection against Party A, the director of the competent regional tax office considers Party A as a resident of Indonesia from 2011 to 2015, and the imposition disposition of global income tax for the pertinent year shall not be deemed to be a resident of Indonesia in 2016, and the objection against the imposition disposition of global income tax for the year 2016 shall be deemed to be a resident of the Republic of Korea.

In accordance with the Income Tax Act and the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, the chief of the competent tax office, upon Gap's objection to the imposition of global income tax for the year 2011 through 2016, the director of the competent tax office, the director of the regional tax office, the director of the regional tax office, from 2011 to 2015, shall be deemed to be an Indonesia resident, and the imposition of global income tax for the year 201 to 2015 shall be revoked, and the imposition of global income tax for the year 2011 through 2015 shall not be deemed to be an Indones

According to Article 4(1) and (2) of the “Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income”, where a resident of the Republic of Korea is deemed to be a resident of the Contracting State having a permanent residence when determining the resident country, and where the permanent residence exists in both Contracting States, where the Contracting State is more closely related to the individual and his personal and economic aspects among the Contracting States, the case held that: (a) considering family relations, social relations, occupation, political and cultural activities, place of business, and place of management of property, the degree of the relationship between the two Contracting States is more deep; (b) Party A was residing in or leased to a factory dormitory in Indonesia from 2005 to 201; (c) Party A was able to reside in or reside in the Republic of Korea from 209 days to 209; and (d) Party A was able to return to the Republic of Korea’s residential premises from 2016 years to Do.

Article 1-2(1)1 and (2) of the Income Tax Act, Article 2(1) and (3)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Article 4(1) and (2) of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Ho-ap et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Director of the sericultural Tax Office

on March 5, 2021

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 430,692,980 (including additional tax) for the year 2016 against the Plaintiff on July 2, 2018 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In around 2010, the Plaintiff acquired 95% of the shares of PT. SOLAS KUSB USA (hereinafter “instant company”) as the clothing stuffing company located in the Republic of Indonesia (hereinafter “Indonesia”), and is in office as the representative director of the instant company until now.

B. From 2011 to 2015, the Plaintiff filed a global income tax return in Korea. On May 29, 2017, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 4,957,87,877 as global income tax for the year 2016, deducting KRW 86,627,963, such as the amount of tax already paid in Indonesia from KRW 91,585,840, which was paid by the instant company in 2016.

C. As a result of the Plaintiff’s tax investigation from November 29, 2017 to May 8, 2018, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office determined that: (a) the Plaintiff constitutes a domestic resident pursuant to the Income Tax Act and the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income (hereinafter “instant Tax Treaty”); (b) from 2011 to 2016, remitted to the domestic account under the names of the Plaintiff, Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 2, the Plaintiff’s spouse during the period 5,207,56,701 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “domestic account of the Plaintiff’s family”), the amount of KRW 3,440,063,629, which was remitted from the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Plaintiff constitutes the dividend income earned by the instant company; and (c) the amount of KRW 1,695,273,305.

(d) From 2011 to 2016, the detailed details of money transferred from the Plaintiff’s name in Indonesia account and from the Indonesia account in the name of the instant company to the Plaintiff’s family’s domestic account are as follows:

In addition to the statement (units: 17,348, 5490, 17, 17, 348, 548, 549, 549, 2012 191,650,726, 267, 114, 5777, 458, 765, 30303 272,10,006 927,217, 689, 199, 327, 695, 257, 257, 257, 97, 192, 94, 1950, 214, 172, 147, 2015, 386, 1965, 257, 257, 207, 257, 1965, 206365, 297, 2015

E. On July 2, 2018, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of global income tax (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), KRW 17,171,260, global income tax for the year 201, KRW 158,343,850, global income tax for the year 2012, global income tax for the year 2013, KRW 558,852,750, global income tax for the year 2013, global income tax for the year 2014, KRW 575,630,630, global income tax for the year 2014, global income tax for the year 2015, and KRW 430,692,980 for global income tax for the year 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. On August 9, 2018, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the imposition of each global income tax, and filed an objection on August 15, 2018, the Seoul Regional Tax Office dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiff’s objection on the ground that “The Plaintiff is a dual resident of the Republic of Korea and Indonesia from 2011 to 2015, and the Indonesia is deemed to be a resident in Indonesia under the instant tax treaty, focusing on the significant interest.” The Plaintiff revoked the imposition of each global income tax for the year 201 to 2015, and on the ground that “It is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had a permanent residence in Indonesia or that Indonesia was a center of a significant interest.”

G. On December 10, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on September 18, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 9, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) argument that it is not a resident under the Income Tax Act

After acquiring the company of this case, the Plaintiff resided in Indonesia for most of the periods of time while serving as the representative director of the company of this case, and only temporarily stayed in Korea to meet his family or receive medical treatment. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have either established his domicile in Korea in 2016 or established his residence in Korea for at least 183 days. Thus, the Plaintiff does not constitute a resident of the Republic of Korea

2) The assertion that it constitutes a resident in Indonesia under the instant tax treaty

Even if the Plaintiff is a resident of the Republic of Korea under the Income Tax Act, the Plaintiff is also a resident of Indonesia under the Income Tax Act. As such, the Plaintiff is a dual resident of the Republic of Korea and Indonesia. The Plaintiff’s permanent residence is in Indonesia, and the center of important interests is also Indonesia, it is determined as a resident of Indonesia according to the criteria

3) The assertion that only income after December 5, 2016 falls under the subject of taxation.

Even if the Plaintiff considers the Plaintiff as a resident of the Republic of Korea and imposes the global income tax for 2016, Article 2-2(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that a nonresident shall be a resident on the 183th day of the period in which he/she has his/her domicile in the Republic of Korea. As such, the Plaintiff is a domestic resident from December 5, 2016, on which the period in which he/she has his/her domicile in the Republic of Korea in the year 2016, and only the income

4) The assertion that the amount of remittance to a domestic account in 2016 is merely a transfer of the Plaintiff’s assets.

The Plaintiff’s transfer of money from the Indonesia account in 2016 to the Plaintiff’s family’s domestic account is not a dividend income received from the instant company, but merely a transfer of the assets acquired and kept by the Plaintiff before December 31, 2015 to the Republic of Korea, and thus, cannot be deemed as a dividend income.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

The following facts are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the whole purport of the arguments and statements in Gap's evidence and evidence set forth in Gap's evidence and evidence set forth in Gap's 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 19 through 22, Eul's 4 through 7, 10, 13, 14, 15 (including each number in the case of serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).

1) Family relation and residence of the Plaintiff

A) The Plaintiff, as the representative director of the Dogjin Mad Co., Ltd., operated the clothing manufacturing business in Korea, and the company was insolvent, and left Indonesia around September 194. The Plaintiff’s spouse, Nonparty 1 (the date of birth 1 omitted), Nonparty 2 (the date of birth 2 omitted), and Nonparty 4 (the date of birth 3 omitted, June 201) continued to reside in Korea without departing from Korea with the Plaintiff.

B) From December 18, 2006 to February 12, 2015, the Plaintiff placed his/her domicile on the apartment house located in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 1 omitted) where Nonparty 5, a non-party 1’s fault, was located, and the Plaintiff stated, in the course of the tax investigation, that “the Plaintiff was only a resident registration in the said domicile because the lawsuit, etc. was pending in connection with the insolvency of the company, and thus, the Plaintiff was under way.” From February 12, 2015 to January 25, 2017, the Plaintiff placed his/her domicile on the officetel located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 2 omitted). However, during the tax investigation process, the Plaintiff stated, “the children were residing in the said officetel for the purpose of attending the school, and the lease deposit was paid by the Plaintiff’s spouse and the management expenses by the Plaintiff,” respectively.

C) From March 18, 2008 to June 28, 2013, the Plaintiff’s family members resided in the apartment located in the Dong-gu Government-si ( Address 3 omitted), from June 28, 2013 to March 3, 2015, and were residing in the Songpa-gu Seoul ( Address 4 omitted). From March 3, 2015, the Plaintiff’s family members resided in the said ( Address 4 omitted).

D) Since 2011, the Plaintiff was staying in the house where his family lives, and the Plaintiff’s address is indicated in the Plaintiff’s medical certificate as of May 6, 2016 and the medical certificate as of June 9, 2016.

E) From 205 to 2016, the Plaintiff resided in the dormitory in the Indonesia factory or resided in the house on a monthly basis, leased the house on a yearly basis. On February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) on March 4, 2016 to March 3, 2017, 3,200 US dollars; (b) monthly rent 3,200 US dollars; and (c) on monthly rent 3,200 US dollars. The Plaintiff resided in Indonesia with the permission of residence from the Indones Ministry of Labor; (c) on a continuous basis, the Plaintiff submitted to the tax authority a report on certification of residence of foreign workers received from the Indones Ministry of Labor from 2011 to 2017 at the time of domestic tax investigation.

F) The number of days of stay in Korea from 2010 to 2018 between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s family members is as follows.

Plaintiff 224 16 26 529 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 32350 365 365 365 365 160 2016 2017 2017 Plaintiff 2224 224 16 16 226529 2012 201 2734 179 2015 202 23254 3254 21 365 32350 363536 365 365 365 160

2) Plaintiff’s income activities, financial status, etc.

A) After departure from Indonesia on September 1994, the Plaintiff worked for the instant company from 2005 to 95, and became the representative director of the instant company by accepting 95% of the shares of the instant company around 2010.

B) On January 5, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to pay 50% of the company’s profit and other income to Nonparty 3 during the next five years. On May 10, 2016, the Plaintiff again entered into an agreement with the same content (hereinafter “Agreement on Distribution of Income”).

C) In the course of the tax investigation, the Plaintiff stated that the instant company’s sales amount from 2010 to 2017 was “The sales amounting to USD 1,00,000 per month was generated as an OEM factory for export of the United States of America, and the annual sales amount was exceeded KRW 12 billion.”

D) From 2011 to 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 1,695,273,305 from the Indonesia account under the name of the Plaintiff’s family to the domestic account of the Plaintiff’s family, and transferred KRW 3,512,283,396 in total from the Plaintiff’s family to the Plaintiff’s domestic account. During the same period, the Plaintiff wired the amount of money similar to that of the Plaintiff’s family from each of the above Indonesia accounts to the Plaintiff’s domestic account. In the course of the tax investigation, the Plaintiff stated that “1,695,272,305 won transferred from the Plaintiff’s company’s name to the Plaintiff’s domestic account from the Plaintiff’s family to the Plaintiff’s domestic account is the full wage and bonus accrued from the instant company. Of the amount transferred from the Plaintiff’s domestic account to the Plaintiff’s family’s domestic account, excluding the above earned income, the remainder was distributed to Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 1/2 of the Plaintiff’s respective profits deposited in the Plaintiff’s account.

E) The Plaintiff reported the details of income to the Indonesia tax authority from 2011 to 2015 are as follows. With respect to the reasons why the Plaintiff’s income reported in Indonesia was significantly less than the money that the Plaintiff transferred to the domestic account of the Plaintiff’s family member, the Plaintiff stated, in the course of the tax investigation, that “the Plaintiff omitted a return on the substantial portion of the income accrued in Indonesia and paid taxes additionally after undergoing the tax investigation

Table contained in the main sentence (unit: conversion into won currency for the year of KRW 13,097 - 13,097 - 13,097 1,177 2,392 2,392 2,392 215 2012,606 2,606 2342,827 2,827254 2014 2,656 2,656 2396 2,616 2,616 2,616 2355

* The exchange rate (1% A/0.09 won) as of December 31, 2015

F) As of December 31, 2016, the details of the property that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s family members owned in Korea are as follows. The Plaintiff donated KRW 800 million to the Plaintiff’s spouse around December 8, 2014, when the Plaintiff’s spouse purchased ( Address 4 omitted), and reported and paid gift tax thereon.

The real estate spouse's real estate spouse ( Address 4 omitted) 1,070 on December 8, 2014, the acquisition date of the title (unit: KRW 18 2,487, such as the Bank, while the Plaintiff (owner), the spouse of the Plaintiff and the spouse of the Plaintiff on May 11, 2015, on July 2, 2015, the real estate spouse of the real estate spouse on the date of acquisition of the title (name 4 omitted) 1,070 on which the date of acquisition of the title (name 4 omitted) located within the main sentence, including the bank, is 17 cases, such as the Plaintiff, the spouse of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff on July 2, 2015, Plaintiff (name 4 omitted) on November 1, 2015, and 3,932

D. Determination

1) Determination on the assertion that a resident is not a resident under the Income Tax Act

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 1-2 (1) of the Income Tax Act defines a resident as a “individual who has a domicile in Korea or has a domicile in Korea for not less than 183 days” under subparagraph 1 of the same Article, and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act imposes an obligation to pay income tax on a resident. Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act delegated by Article 1-2 (2) of the former Income Tax Act provides that “The address under Article 1-2 of the Income Tax Act shall be determined based on the objective facts of the living relationship, such as the existence of a family living together in Korea and of an asset located in Korea.” In addition, Article 1-2 (3) of the Income Tax Act provides that “Where an individual living in Korea falls under any of the following subparagraphs, it shall be deemed that the individual has a domicile in Korea” under subparagraph 2 of the same Article provides that “if a family living in Korea has a family living together, and it is deemed that a person

“A family member who lives together in Korea” as a requirement for deeming that he/she has an address in Korea under Article 2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act refers to a relative who lives together with a living fund or a place of residence in Korea, and “when he/she is deemed to continue residing in Korea for at least 183 days in view of his/her occupation and property status” means cases closely related to Korea, such as cases where he/she appears to be in need of residence in Korea for at least 183 days in light of the purport that a resident is a person liable for income tax (see Supreme Court Decisions 2013Du16876, Nov. 27, 2014; 2018Du60847, Mar. 14, 2019, etc.).

B) Specific determination

In light of the aforementioned facts and the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff has a family living together in Korea in 2016, and that the Plaintiff is living together with the Plaintiff’s family living together with the leased house or the Plaintiff’s spouse, and that the Plaintiff has a domicile in Korea, such as holding considerable assets in Korea. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

① Subsequent to the Plaintiff’s departure from Indonesia on September 1994, the Plaintiff’s family members continued to reside in Korea, and the Plaintiff was staying in Korea at the home where his family members reside. The Plaintiff transferred the income earned in Indonesia to the family members in Korea. In particular, from 2011 to 2016, the Plaintiff transferred approximately KRW 5.2 billion to the domestic account of the Plaintiff’s family members to use it as living expenses, housing expenses, real estate purchase expenses, etc. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s spouse and children fall under “family members living in Korea” as stipulated in Article 2(1) of the Income Tax Act, who are close relatives with the Plaintiff’s living funds and residential places in Korea.

② From 2011 to 2016, the Plaintiff remitted approximately KRW 5.2 billion to the Plaintiff’s family’s domestic account. Accordingly, in the course of the tax investigation, the Plaintiff stated as follows: “The Plaintiff’s spouse was unable to treat and brought in the property located in Indonesia as it deemed difficult to return to Korea.” From around December 2014, the Plaintiff’s spouse purchased an apartment from March 2015 with the funds donated by the Plaintiff to the said apartment, and entered the Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff was living in the said apartment, and the Plaintiff purchased an automobile in Korea around July 2015, and purchased a golf club membership around November 2015. It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s residence together with his family members in Korea was an economic activity that the Plaintiff planned to reside for a considerable period of time.

③ In fact, the Plaintiff entered Korea two times from 2011 to 2015, and the number of days of stay in Korea gradually increased, and since 2016, the period of stay in Korea exceeds Indonesia was longer longer than 209 days in 2016, 212 days in 2017, and 277 days in 2018, together with his family.

2) Determination on the assertion that the Plaintiff constitutes a resident in Indonesia under the instant tax treaty

A) Relevant legal principles

Inasmuch as a certain individual is both a domestic resident and a foreign resident under the Income Tax Act, if he/she constitutes a person liable for income tax, etc. under the relevant foreign law, a separate provision is established upon entering into a tax treaty between countries to prevent such double resident. If the fact that the person liable for tax payment is a dual resident, the determination of which country shall be deemed a resident of the country, as prescribed by the treaty concluded with the country concerned.

Accordingly, Article 4(1) of the Tax Treaty provides that "a resident of a Contracting State for the purpose of this Agreement" means a person who is treated as a resident for tax purposes in that Contracting State in accordance with the laws of that Contracting State, and Article 4(2) provides that "if an individual becomes a resident of both Contracting States in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1), his status shall be determined as follows." subparagraph (a) provides that "if that individual has a permanent residence available to him/her, he/she shall be deemed to be a resident of the Contracting State. Where that individual has a permanent residence available to him/her in both Contracting States, he/she shall be deemed to be a resident of the Contracting State (referring to the center of a heavy interest)," and subparagraph (b) and (c) provides the criteria for determining the status of a resident of the Tax Treaty in the case of failure to determine pursuant to subparagraph (a) in succession.

Here, permanent residence refers to all types of residence which can be continuously used at any time as a place of residence for any purpose other than short-term stay, such as travel or business trip. Thus, the circumstances such as the ownership or lease of a house by an individual do not need to be considered in determining the permanent residence. In the event such permanent residence exists in both Contracting States, where a Contracting State is more closely related to an individual’s personal and economic life among the Contracting States, it shall be examined where the center of important interests, which is the following criteria for determining the residence of a dual resident under the instant tax treaty (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Du60847, Mar. 14, 2019, etc.). This means a Contracting State, where the degree of relevance of the individual is more closely related to the individual’s family, social relationship, occupation, political and cultural activities, place of business, place of property management, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Du60847, Mar. 14, 2019).

B) Specific determination

(1) First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff is a resident under the Income Tax Act. Article 2(3)(a) of the Indonesia Income Tax Act provides that “resident who is a taxpayer” is ① an individual who resides in Indonesia, ② an individual who stays in Indonesia for more than 183 days, ③ an individual who has an intention to reside in Indonesia for more than 12 months, and ③ an individual who resides in Indonesia during a specific taxable year, and Article 2(6) of the Income Tax Act provides that the tax authority shall determine “resident” depending on the actual circumstances.

According to the facts established earlier, the Plaintiff, while working in the instant company since 2005, leased and resided in the dormitory in the Indonesia factory. From March 4, 2016 to March 3, 2017, the Plaintiff leased and resided in Indonesia housing. Not only obtained the residence permission from the Ministry of Labor of Indonesia but also reported and paid the income tax as a resident of Indonesia to the Indonesia tax authority from 2011 to 2016. In cases where foreign laws and regulations applicable to legal relations containing foreign elements are determined and interpreted, it is reasonable to deem that foreign laws and regulations are applied in principle in terms of the meaning, content, and interpretation as they are actually interpreted and applied in their own country (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da49811, May 12, 2016). The Plaintiff constitutes the criteria for the concept of "Indones Income Tax Act" under the Income Tax Act established by the Ministry of Labor and the Indo tax authority.

(2) Therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes a dual resident of the Republic of Korea and Indonesia in 2016, and thus, is deemed to be a national of any country in accordance with the criteria for determining the residence of dual residents under the instant tax treaty. In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged in addition to the aforementioned facts and the overall purport of the arguments, the Plaintiff is deemed to have a permanent residence in 2016, but, inasmuch as it is the Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff is deemed to have a center of a significant interest that is closely related to the Plaintiff’s human and economic aspects, the Plaintiff is deemed to be a resident of the Republic of Korea in accordance with

(A) From March 4, 2016 to March 3, 2017, the Plaintiff resided in, or resided in, a dormitory located in Indonesia from 2005, and leased and resided in, Indonesia. Meanwhile, from March 4, 2016 to March 3, 2017, the Plaintiff entered Korea on two occasions from 2011 to 2015, and the Plaintiff’s family were living in, a house owned by the Plaintiff’s spouse when entering Korea. From March 2015, the date of his/her stay in Korea was 209 days. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s residence located in the Republic of Korea and Indonesia in 2016 was not prepared for a short-term stay, such as a travel or business trip, but for a place to continue to stay for any other purpose, each of the above dwelling places constitutes “permanent residence” as stipulated in the instant tax treaty.

(B) Therefore, the following criteria for determining the residence of dual residents under the tax treaty of this case are where the Plaintiff’s family members resided in the Republic of Korea without moving to Indonesia after the Plaintiff’s departure. ② The Plaintiff engaged in economic activities for a long time in Indonesia. However, the Plaintiff decided to return to the Republic of Korea after the aggravation of health in 201 and increased the number of days of stay in the Republic of Korea. Since 2016, the Plaintiff mainly resided with his family members in the Republic of Korea. ③ The Plaintiff transferred a considerable portion of its assets by 2016 to the Republic of Korea, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s and his spouse appears to have been in the Republic of Korea for a reasonable period of time, and the Plaintiff’s temporary stay in the Republic of Korea cannot be seen as being within the Republic of Korea or within the Republic of Korea for treatment of the Plaintiff’s family members, in light of the fact that it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s temporary stay in the Republic of Korea, including apartment houses, approximately 2.48 billion won, golf club membership, etc.

3) Determination as to the assertion that only income after December 5, 2016 is subject to taxation

Article 2-2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act stipulates that “the date on which a nonresident has a domicile in the Republic of Korea” is a resident. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff continuously entered the Republic of Korea during the period of residence in Indonesia and sent the same to his/her family members’ residence. From March 2015, when entering the Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff resided together with his/her family members in the Plaintiff’s spouse’s house. From March 2011, the number of days of his/her stay in the Republic of Korea has increased since 2011 to the date of his/her stay in Indonesia, the number of days of his/her stay in the Republic of Korea exceeds the date of his/her stay in Indonesia in 2016. It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was a resident of the Republic of Korea in January 1, 20

4) Determination as to the assertion that the amount remitted to the domestic account is merely a transfer of assets

In full view of the following circumstances revealed in light of the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the money transferred from the Plaintiff’s Indonesia account to the Plaintiff’s family’s domestic account constituted dividend income under Article 17(1)6 of the Income Tax Act, as the Plaintiff received distribution of the company’s profits or surplus. The Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

① From 2011 to 2016, the Plaintiff stated to the effect that, from the Indonesia account in the name of the Plaintiff, from the Indonesia account in the name of the instant company to the Plaintiff’s family’s domestic account, approximately KRW 5.2 billion (the amount converted into US dollars; hereinafter the same shall apply), Nonparty 3 transferred approximately KRW 5.3 billion to the non-party 3’s account, and both the Plaintiff and the non-party 3 stated to the effect that “the said money is the earned income received from the instant company and the profits of the instant company.”

② In fact, upon examining the details of the Plaintiff’s domestic account and Nonparty 3’s family account in the name of the Plaintiff’s family member, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 3 received a small amount of not more than $20,000 from 1 to 2 times a week in a day, and the same amount on the same day can be confirmed by a majority of the details that were deposited in the Plaintiff and Nonparty 3. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and Nonparty 3 received the profits accrued from the operation of the instant company as distributed under the instant profit distribution agreement.

③ The Plaintiff transferred approximately KRW 260 million from the Indonesian account under the Plaintiff’s name to the domestic account of the Plaintiff’s family in 2012, KRW 920 million in 2013, KRW 950 million in 2014, KRW 668 million in 2015, KRW 693 million in 2016, and approximately KRW 693 million in 2016, since the amount of remittance in 2016 is not deemed to have exceeded the amount of money that the Plaintiff already collected prior to the year 2015, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff transferred money that he had already been collected to the Plaintiff in 2016.

④ The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff transferred the assets held in Indonesia by December 31, 2015, based on the details of the change in the savings assets in the Indonesia account (Evidence A No. 13) in the Plaintiff’s name, to the Republic of Korea. However, in light of the fact that a majority of the same amount was withdrawn from the Plaintiff’s account in the Indonesia name to the Plaintiff and Nonparty 3, it is sufficient to deem that the Plaintiff’s account constituted an account that the Plaintiff is not an account that has already kept wage and salary income or dividend income received from the instant company, but an account that has kept the Plaintiff’s income in the instant company’s name. In this case, the amount transferred from the Plaintiff’s account in the Indones name to the Plaintiff’s family’s domestic account

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Separate] Relevant Acts and subordinate statutes: omitted

Judges Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)

1) During the above period, the total amount transferred from the Indonesia account under the Plaintiff’s name to the Plaintiff’s family’s domestic account is KRW 3,512,293,396. Of them, KRW 72,229,767, which cannot be seen as a dividend under the profit distribution agreement between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 3, was determined as dividend income (= KRW 3,440,063,629, excluding the dividend income (= KRW 3,512,293, 396 - KRW 72,229,767).