early 2012west 2992 (Law No. 13, 2012)

Even if there is no close living relationship in the Republic of Korea, it is a resident since the domestic residence period is at least one year over two taxable periods.

Even if 540 days of domestic stay in Korea were 540 days or more for 2 years, the plaintiff did not have a close general living relationship, such as address, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff had a place where he resides in Korea over a considerable period of time, i.e., a place where he resides in Korea, and the case where the period is more than one year over 2 years, and it is reasonable to see that the plaintiff is an individual who has a domestic residence in Korea and

2012Guhap41912 Revocation of Disposition rejecting a request for correction

AAAA

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

May 10, 2013

June 7, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The rejection disposition that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff’s request for correction on March 13, 2012 (which appears to be a clerical error as of March 28, 2012) concerning global income for the period of 209 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 31, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a final return on the tax base of global income tax for 2009 with the tax base of the Defendant (=000 won of global income - income deduction - 000 won of income deduction), 35% of the tax amount, and 000 won of the calculated tax amount, and paid the said tax amount.

B. On March 28, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to the effect that: (a) the Plaintiff constitutes a non-resident under the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply); (b) only 10% of the total global income amount consisting of interest and dividend income pursuant to Article 121(3) of the former Income Tax Act and Article 11 of the Korea-China Tax Treaty shall be the lawful calculated tax amount; and (c) KRW 000 of the total global income amount in excess of the initial reported tax amount shall be

C. On April 27, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff to the effect that the Plaintiff was a resident under the former Income Tax Act, and thus refusing the Gu of the said corrective office (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On June 22, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, and dismissed the said claim on September 13, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the disposition of this case is unlawful. The plaintiff is a non-resident under the former Income Tax Act, and the Tax Tribunal judged that the plaintiff's living relationship is a non-resident in relation to the imposition disposition of transfer income tax for 2008 years, and that the plaintiff's residential relationship is appropriate if the plaintiff is a non-resident under the former Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) under Article 154 (1) 2 (c) of the former Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act "if all members of a household depart from Korea due to such conditions as attending school or work continuously requiring overseas residence for 1 year or longer" under Article 2 (4) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act which is similar to the above provision, and it is reasonable to consider that the plaintiff is a non-resident under Article 2 (4) 2 (c) of the former Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act, and even if the plaintiff is not a resident under Article 4 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree, it should not be viewed that two (2).

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 1 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act provides that "the person who is obligated to pay income tax shall be a resident, or who has a domicile in Korea for more than one year," and Article 2 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "the distinction between the address and the resident and the non-resident prescribed in paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree," while Article 2 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "the place in which the plaintiff has a close general living relationship as the address for a long time other than his domicile is not formed" and Article 4 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree provides that "if the period in which the plaintiff has a domicile in Korea is not less than one year, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff has a domicile in Korea for more than one year, and if the plaintiff has a domicile in Korea for more than 2 years, it shall be deemed that there is no more than 1 year, and if the date of his residence in Korea is 540 days or more, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff has a domestic residential relationship."

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.