Article 80 of the Income Tax Act means that a person lives together with the prescribed amount of income.

Article 80 of the Income Tax Act does not necessarily require the same household as the resident registration card, but it means a unit of living from the same living fund by way of existence and absence in daily life.

Articles 80 and 81 of the Income Tax Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Mapo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu89 delivered on January 11, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

The purpose of Articles 80 and 81 of the Income Tax Act, which provide for the cumulative taxation of property assets, is to consider the tax-bearing capacity for each household unit in cases of property assets among the members of a household, is to think of the tax-bearing capacity rather than that for each individual unit, and to reduce the tax burden because the original property income is easy to reduce the tax burden by distributing the name to the members of a family, so it can prevent the tax avoidance act, and to apply the cumulative tax rate to the sum of property assets can realize the fair tax burden conforming to the tax-bearing capacity. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the living should be shared in this context as the same household under the resident registration card, but it is reasonable to interpret that it means the unit of living in the same livelihood fund, depending on whether it is possible to do so in the daily life.

In this case, the court below found that the non-party, as the second son of the plaintiff, held 20% shares of the plaintiff and 20% shares of the non-party as the second son of the plaintiff, and worked as executive director on the date when the plaintiff was a representative director, he was living together with the plaintiff and other family members in Mapo-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) since November 1975, and married around March 1979 and lived separately in around March 1980. The court below held that the non-party, as the second son of the plaintiff, was living together with the plaintiff and other family members, and that the non-party was living together with the plaintiff as of August 8, 1981. The judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence and misunderstanding of legal principles due to the lawsuit against the rules of evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young