The purpose of Article 15(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which stipulates that the resident registration card shall be followed in calculating the number of months of residence for one household.

The provisions of Article 15(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which provides that the number of months of residence of one household eligible for non-taxation under subparagraph 6 (i) of Article 5 of the Income Tax Act and Article 15(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be calculated by the number of months from the date of transfer to the date of transfer from the date of transfer under the resident registration card, is merely for the convenience of proof, and it cannot be deemed that the recognition of residence should be based solely on

Article 15 (7) of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu218 delivered on July 12, 1983, 84Nu703 Delivered on March 26, 1985

Plaintiff

Director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu115 delivered on June 21, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. The reasoning of the judgment below is that the plaintiff purchased 10.67 square meters on the ground of the non-party on December 25, 1977, when he leased a store located in Guro-gu ( Address 1 omitted) and operated ○○○○ Water Distribution, and immediately purchased 10.67 square meters on the ground of the non-party's house ( Address 2 omitted) which is the house of this case from the non-party until June 10, 1979 when he moved and disposed of the house, but the leased store and the house are located in the nearest distance between the house and the non-party, but they are located in the nearest distance between the house and the house, but they did not move to the above ( Address 2 omitted) whose residence is the same as Tong-gu and half-gu. Accordingly, the court below's finding of facts is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. The provisions of Article 15(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act which provides that the number of months of residence of one household eligible for non-taxation under subparagraph 6 (i) of Article 5 of the Income Tax Act and Article 15(1) of the same Enforcement Decree shall be calculated by the number of months from the date of transfer to the date of transfer from the date of transfer under the resident registration card is merely for the convenience of proof, and it cannot be deemed that the recognition of residence must be made only by the entry in the resident registration card (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu218 delivered on July 12, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu703 delivered on March 26, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu703 delivered on March 26, 198, which recognized the above residence as well and decided by the plaintiff and did not have been registered in the resident registration card for six months or more, the income accrued from the transfer of the house shall be deemed as non-taxable income. There is no error in the misapprehension

3. Therefore, all arguments are without merit, 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.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju