The meaning of a family member living together under Article 80 of the Income Tax Act;

A family member living together under Article 80 of the Income Tax Act, which provides for the cumulative taxation of property income, refers to a family member living together in reality, and it does not necessarily require the same family member in terms of resident registration, but means a unit of living with the same amount of money for daily life, depending on whether it is possible or not.

Article 80 of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu194 Decided November 26, 1985 86Nu869 Decided May 26, 1987

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1221 delivered on February 23, 1988

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to the second ground:

In addition, a family member living together with a living together under Article 80 of the Income Tax Act, which provides for the cumulative taxation of property income, refers to a family member living together in reality. It does not necessarily require the same family member under the resident registration card, but in daily life, it refers to a unit of living in the same household and living together with the existence and absence of the same family member. Therefore, the judgment of whether a family member living together with a living together with a family member should be based on whether the resident registration place actually resided in one household and living together with the same person regardless of the same person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu194, Nov. 26, 1985; 86Nu869, May 26, 1987).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff and his father, who are an unmarried social norm, are living together with his family members in the same lot number as of the expiration date of the taxable year of this case as of December 1, 1982, while he was employed and worked as a civil engineering assistant member as of December 1, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company"), from March 15, 1984 to May 9 of the same year, and from May 10, 1984, the non-party company's work site as a single transfer construction site of the non-party company, from May 10 to January 10, 1985, and the plaintiff formed the single household unit with the non-party ○○ (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party) as of the expiration date of the taxable year

However, in light of the facts acknowledged by the court below and the plaintiff's age (date of birth omitted) recognized by Gap evidence 1, the facts confirmed by the court below alone are difficult to view that the plaintiff and the non-party are living together with the above conditions. In light of the facts acknowledged by the court below and the plaintiff's age (date of birth omitted), barring special circumstances, the plaintiff was not living together with the non-party and the non-party who is expected to have been on duty. It is difficult to view that his living together

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the family living together with the living together under Article 80 (1) of the Income Tax Act, and there is a reason to discuss.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)