[종합소득세부과처분취소][공2002.9.1.(161),1973]
[1] Standard for determining the time of attribution of income under the Income Tax Act
[2] In case where an attorney-at-law agreed to receive a certain percentage of winning amount as remuneration, the time of realizing the income from paying remuneration (=the time of final judgment in favor of the accepted case)
[3] The case holding that since it is reasonable to view that the case is a kind of provisional payment in which an attorney receives and keeps part of the provisional payment received according to the declaration of provisional execution in the judgment of the court of first instance, it cannot be deemed as a conclusive business income of an attorney-at-law who actually imported the case, unless the judgment on the case is finalized since the case is pending in the court
[1] The right confirmation principle, which is the principle of determining the time when income is attributed under the Income Tax Act, is not the time when income is realized, but the income for the pertinent year is deemed to have accrued at the time of the occurrence of the right, and the income for the pertinent year is to be assessed in advance on the premise that it will be realized in the future. However, in such a right confirmation principle, the concept of "determined" cannot be defined as a general principle that is not an exception to the time when income is attributed, and the time when income is attributed should be determined on the basis of whether the income is considerably mature and finalized when considering the specific issues such as the management and control of income, the degree of the objective of income generated, and the time when the taxpayer is secured.
[2] Where an attorney-at-law has agreed to receive a certain percentage of the winning amount as remuneration when the accepted case becomes final and conclusive as a result of delegation of litigation affairs, it shall be deemed that the income of the winning amount is realized at the time of completion by the process of litigation affairs becomes final and conclusive as a winning of the accepted case.
[3] Where an attorney-at-law delegated a lawsuit seeking damages against the Korea Water Resources Corporation (including members of a fishing village fraternity) on behalf of him/her on behalf of him/her until the judgment of the court of first instance becomes final and conclusive, and the attorney-at-law agreed to pay 10% of the winning amount of the judgment as an advance fee and 20% of the winning amount as a contingent fee for the case, and where the attorney-at-law is carrying out the litigation affairs in the course of performing the litigation affairs through the former instance of the above case (including both before and after remand of the Supreme Court), it is reasonable to interpret the above delegation agreement as the contents that the attorney-at-law's personal provision of services is completed and the attorney's fee income is realized upon completion of the case's final and conclusive judgment as to the above case's case's final and conclusive, and it cannot be deemed that the attorney-at-law's personal provision of services is completed since the above case is still pending in the court of first instance and the judgment has not become final and conclusive.
[1] Articles 28(1) and 51(1) (see current Article 24(1)), and 57(4)7 (see current Article 48 subparag. 8) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994); Article 28(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994; see current Article 39(1)); Article 57(4)7 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1467, Dec. 31, 1994; see current Article 48 subparag. 16(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994; see current Article 24(1)); Article 51(2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4801, Dec. 27, 1994)
[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Nu407 delivered on September 27, 198 (Gong1988, 1349) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8180 delivered on June 22, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2172) Supreme Court Decision 96Nu2200 delivered on April 8, 197 (Gong1997Sang, 147), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu19154 delivered on June 13, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 207Ha, 2077), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1914 delivered on June 9, 198 (Gong198Ha, 1909) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu2984 delivered on April 27, 1993 (Gong1994, 2098Du196394 delivered on June 29, 2097)
Plaintiff
The head of Yangcheon Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu12450 delivered on December 26, 2000
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The principle of confirmation of right, which is the principle of determining the time of attribution of income under the Income Tax Act, is not the time when the income is realized, but the income of the year concerned is deemed to have been accrued when the right occurs and the income of the year concerned is to be calculated on the premise that it will be realized in the future. However, the concept of "determination" in the principle of confirmation of right cannot be defined as the general principle without exception to the time of attribution of income. In a specific case, the time of attribution should be determined on the basis of whether the income is considerably mature and finalized to the extent that it is highly likely to realize the income (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu19154, Jun. 13, 1997; Supreme Court Decision 9Nu1954, Jun. 13, 1997; where an attorney has agreed to receive a certain percentage of winning amount as remuneration when the retained case is finalized as the winning case, and the amount of winning amount should be determined on the basis of the completion of the contract.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the above non-party 1 was delegated to the non-party 2 for damages claim against the non-party 1 Korea Water Resources Corporation (hereinafter "non-party 1") on March 29, 198 and the above non-party 2's above non-party 1's non-party 9 non-party 2's non-party 9 non-party 2's non-party 9 plaintiff's non-party 9 plaintiff's non-party 2's non-party 9 plaintiff's non-party 9 plaintiff's non-party 9 plaintiff's non-party 1's non-party 9 plaintiff's non-party 2's non-party 9 plaintiff's non-party 9 plaintiff's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9 plaintiff's non-party 1's non-party 9 plaintiff's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1'.
In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the period of attribution of income under the Income Tax Act, violation of the rules of evidence and incomplete hearing
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)