[2] The case holding that it is difficult to view that the lease fee claim incurred prior to the commencement of corporate restructuring cannot be objectively deemed as being impossible to recover due to the circumstance that the debtor's financial standing and the fact that the corporate restructuring decision was issued and the financial status have deteriorated, and thus, it cannot be deemed as having been mature and confirmed to

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff participated in the joint lease agreement with the non-party Steel Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Steel Co., Ltd.") from around 1994 to the executive secretary company. The court below determined that the company's overdue interest and interest on its bonds can not be properly paid upon the company's bankruptcy and the company's commencement decision was made on August 27, 1997 under the Company Reorganization Act. On the other hand, the company's default and the company's commencement decision was made upon the company's completion of corporate reorganization, and the company's default interest and interest on its bonds could not be paid upon the company's failure to pay for the company funds. In particular, the court below determined that the company's failure to pay for the company funds on a large scale after the company's default was extremely improper in accounting for 3 years from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 198.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

The principle of confirmation of right refers to the method of calculating income when a right that is the cause of income exists between the time when a right that is the cause of income and the time when a right that is not the time when a tax income is realized is deemed to have accrued when it comes to the time when a right that is not the time when a tax income is realized, and its significance is to allow a prior taxation on uncertain income under the premise that it would be realized in the future, and to prevent a taxpayer from sustaining or determining income in the taxable year by his/her own. Even if it is not necessary to realize such income in reality, the right to generate income should be considerably mature and confirmed in light of the possibility of realizing it, and therefore, it cannot be said that the right has been established only without this degree. The issue of whether a right to earn income has become mature and finalized is to be determined uniformly, and it should be determined in light of the specific nature and substance of each right and various legal and de facto circumstances. Even if a claim that is the cause of income accrues, it should be objectively determined that the debtor’s income cannot be recovered through the debtor’s bankruptcy, etc.

According to the records, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Han Steel on March 1, 1995 with the terms of a joint lease agreement, which provides that the facilities for manufacturing the cooling steel, and the lease period shall be from March 1, 1995 to 84 months. Under the above agreement, the Plaintiff had a lease claim against the Han Steel. Following the decision to authorize the reorganization of the company that received the Han Steel, it can be known that part of the lease amount was to receive differential installment reimbursement from March 2004 to December 2018, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s settlement of accounts was impossible due to the Plaintiff’s bad debt collection claim under Article 9(2)13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970 of Feb. 31, 1998), and Article 9(2)13 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 86 of May 24, 1999).

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the lease fee of this case was the right to profit at the time of the plaintiff's settlement date ( March 31, 1998) and that it was not mature and confirmed to the extent that it is highly feasible. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the principle of confirmation of rights and obligations and bad debts under the Corporate Tax Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)