Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The following facts can be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are together together with the whole purport of the pleading.

① Around October 1990, the Plaintiff, an attorney-at-law, accepted a lawsuit claiming the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of the cancellation of title trust against ten clan members, such as the property trustee, for the land indicated in the attached list (hereinafter, this case’s land) from the clans of the Kim Jong-sung (hereinafter, the non-party clans) in order to use it as a contingent fee, the Plaintiff agreed to receive an amount equivalent to 30% of the economic benefits derived from winning the case’s winning the lawsuit, and agreed to receive 30% of the ownership to be transferred when winning the case’s winning the case’s payment.

② As a result of the plaintiff's lawsuit on behalf of the non-party clan, the Seoul District Court rendered a favorable judgment on January 28, 1992 to the non-party clan, and the decision of dismissal of appeal was also rendered on October 2, 1992 in the Seoul High Court lawsuit, which was brought up by the other party's appeal, and the Supreme Court also rendered a judgment of dismissal of appeal on May 11, 1993 and became final and conclusive.

③ However, in the course of litigation, when this land was expropriated into the non-party Corporation on the wind to incorporate it into the development project district of the development project district of the highly active rice site conducted by the non-party Corporation (hereinafter the non-party Corporation), the Plaintiff and the non-party clan agreed to receive 30% of the compensation to be paid by the land expropriation instead of the share transfer registration.

④ Accordingly, on May 27, 1993, the non-party clan transferred to the Plaintiff the claim amounting to KRW 482,157,600, which is KRW 30% of the claim amounting to 1,607,192,00 for the non-party clan's non-party clan's non-party clan's compensation claim amounting to 30% of the claim amounting to 1,607,192,00. However, upon the plaintiff's request, the transferee's name was the best decision. The non-party clan

④ However, on October 1, 1995, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 286,849,890, including penalty tax of KRW 46,935,218 on the Plaintiff on October 1, 1995 if the Plaintiff omitted the above income at the global income tax return in 1993, considering the above income that would accrue to the Plaintiff in the year 193 (hereinafter the instant disposition).

2. The parties' assertion

(a) Original height;

The above lawsuit that the plaintiff accepted was finalized in 1993, and the land compensation was expected to be paid in 1993, but the non-party clan deposited the above compensation to the non-party corporation as the obligee's uncertainty because the non-party clan requested the suspension of payment of compensation to the plaintiff while raising an objection to the plaintiff's payment of compensation. Thus, the plaintiff could find the deposit as the non-party clan in 1995 at the end of the lawsuit with the non-party clan, so it is unlawful for the defendant to take the disposition of this case even though the above income should be regarded as the income belonging to the year 1995, not to the year 193 but to the year 195.

(b) Sponsor;

Although the withdrawal of deposit money was made in 195, the service of the plaintiff's agent for the non-party clan was completed by the Supreme Court's ruling on May 11, 1993, and the land expropriation compensation amounting to 30% of the 30% of the 30% of the 30% of the 30% of the 30% of the 30% of the 70% of the 70% of the 1993 the 70% of the 1993 of the 1993, the above income of the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been confirmed in 193, and the 195 year is only the time when the right of the non-party's most good faith

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

(a) Relevant statutes;

Article 28(1) and (3) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994) provides that the calculation of the total amount of income with respect to each income shall be based on the total amount of income received or received during the current year. In the calculation of the total amount of income, matters necessary for the scope, calculation or the time when the amount of income received or received is calculated or determined shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 51(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that the year in which the total amount of income and necessary expenses accrue shall be the year in which the total amount of income and necessary expenses are determined.

In addition, Article 57 (4) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994) provides that the receipt date of the total amount of income for the provision of personal services such as the plaintiff's agent shall be the date determined by the agreement as the payment date of the price for the provision of services, but the payment date shall be the date on which the provision of personal services is completed unless the payment date is

B. Facts

The following facts can be acknowledged if the evidence and the evidence set forth in the above subparagraphs 6 through 12 and the testimony of the witness Hong-young are gathered in the whole purport of the pleading:

① The representative of the non-party clan did not have a clan resolution regarding the assignment of the above assignment while the non-party who is the transferee on August 2, 1993, and the representative did not notify the non-party that the assignment of the assignment was made by coercion, and the non-party corporation notified the non-party corporation that the assignment of the assignment was made by coercion, and the non-party corporation should not pay the compensation on the same day.

② On October 12, 1993, the non-party Corporation paid 1,125,034,400 won to the non-party clans, which is 70% of the compensation for confinement, but on the ground that the remaining 30% compensation cannot be known to anyone, it deposited this on December 30 of the same year with the depositer as the non-party clans or the last line, and deposited it with the government branch of the Seoul District Court.

③ On November of the same year, the non-party clan filed a lawsuit against the non-party clan at the Seoul District Court for the claim of compensation amounting to 93da88345, and the non-party clan participated in the lawsuit as an independent party to the lawsuit while the non-party's claim of compensation or the right to claim for payment of deposit money exists, and the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the non-party clan and the plaintiff's partial claim on July 7, 1994, and the non-party clan appealed from the appeal on March 195, but the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

④ On the other hand, upon the decision of dismissal and dismissal in the above lawsuit, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party clan on August 22, 1994 with the Seoul District Court for confirmation of the right to claim deposit money from the non-party clan, and was sentenced to a favorable judgment on January 17, 1995. The above decision became final and conclusive on February 19 of the same year because the non-party clan did not appeal, and the plaintiff paid the deposit money on the 26th of the same month by the decision.

(c) Markets:

The principle of confirmation of right, which is the principle of determining the period of attribution of income, refers to the method of calculating income for the year in which a right that is the cause of income and a right that is not the time when income is realized if there is a time gap between the time when income is confirmed and the time when income is realized. Although the principle permits a prior taxation of income on the premise that it is realized in the future with respect to an uncertain income in substance, the concept of "determination of the right confirmation principle" in the legal basis declared by the law should not be defined as a general principle that is not an exception to the time when income is attributed, and the management of income in specific cases.It is reasonable to reasonably determine the period of attribution based on whether there is a considerable maturity in the realization of income even if it is not necessary to realize income in reality by comprehensively taking into account various conditions, such as the degree of the objectiveization of income generated and the time when income is secured (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8180, Jun. 22, 193).

In accordance with the above facts, the plaintiff's service provision as a legal representative is completed in 1993 and the price for the service is also received in 1993. Thus, the time of receipt of the contingent fee shall be 193. However, there was a dispute between the plaintiff and the non-party clans as above. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for payment of deposit money against the plaintiff's wife was confirmed by judgment in litigation, and the dispute is revealed in the records. In light of the nature, etc., it is reasonable to deem the confirmation of the above claim to be the time when the above judgment against the non-party clans became final and conclusive, so long as it cannot be seen that the plaintiff's claim for payment of deposit money against the plaintiff's wife is an unfair dispute that can be bound to the plaintiff by the nature of the case, and therefore, the year of belonging to the plaintiff's contingent fee shall be deemed to be

The defendant asserts that the non-party clan's objection is the transfer of the right to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to whom the decision was made in 195 is that it is the right of the non-party to the most good faith. However, as seen above, the plaintiff merely takes over the claim from the non-party clan and put the transferee in the name of the most good faith. The non-party clan recognizes the plaintiff's claim against the non-party to the non-party clan only does not dispute the plaintiff's claim for the non-party clan, but it does not dispute the plaintiff's claim itself (the non-party clan filed a petition against the plaintiff with the Seoul Bar Association and filed a complaint against the plaintiff through occupational embezzlement, etc.). Thus, the decision made in 195 is not the right of the plaintiff's good faith, and therefore the defendant's argument is groundless

3. Conclusion

Therefore, it is unlawful that the defendant made the disposition of this case by considering the plaintiff's above income as income belonging to the year 1993. Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Judge)