beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s argument in the first instance judgment under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The addition;
A. In light of the objective facts of living relationship, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion that the living expenses of the deceased and their families are appropriated as domestic income, that 98.7% of the deceased’s property is located in Korea, and that the purpose of departure of the deceased is the backside of minor children studying, the deceased constitutes a resident who has a domicile in Korea pursuant to Article 2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income
B. As seen earlier, as seen earlier, it is difficult to view the deceased’s mother-friendly D’s living together with the deceased at the time of commencing the inheritance, and there was no other family living together in the Republic of Korea. In other words, the deceased left Korea on September 9, 2004 and resided in New Zealand with his/her family (the male father and his/her dependent) prior to his/her entry into New Zealand on April 9, 2012. The period of stay in Korea of the deceased was 54 days, most of the assets of the deceased were living in New Zealand, and the Plaintiff’s translation work, which was another income source of the deceased, appeared to be a new Zealand as well as the Plaintiff’s living base, and it appears that the deceased’s entry into Korea on April 9, 2012 appears to be temporary for the treatment of the disease, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was no other domestic address at the time of commencing the inheritance.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.