[종합소득세부과처분취소][공1998.8.1.(63),2022]
[1] The meaning and standard of determining the occurrence of income as a taxable object of income tax
[2] The occurrence and scope of income where the other party accepted a claim under the agreement to reduce part of the damages for delay pending the appellate trial after the judgment of the first instance court in favor of all creditors was rendered due to dispute over the existence of a claim, and the other party accepted the claim during the appellate trial
[1] In order to ensure that income subject to income tax has been realized, even if it is not necessary until such income has been realized, it shall be considerably mature and finalized in terms of the possibility of realizing the right to generate income. Therefore, it shall not be deemed that there has been income in the mere process of establishing a complex without such a degree. Whether the right to generate income is mature or finalized or not shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the nature or content of each specific right and various matters of law and fact-finding.
[2] If a dispute over the existence of a claim exists and the judgment of the court of first instance in favor of all creditors was rendered, and the other party accepted the claim under the agreement to reduce part of the damages for delay pending the appellate trial, the claim is confirmed by recognizing the claim under the agreement to reduce part of the damages for delay, and thus, the claim for delay, which is the total amount of the creditor's other income, became final and conclusive by deducting the reduced amount from the total amount of damages for delay.
[1] Articles 28 (1) (see current Article 24 (1)), 51 (1) (see current Article 39 (1)), and 57 (4) 7 (see current Article 48 subparagraph 8) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of December 31, 1994) / [2] Article 25 (1) 9 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of December 22, 1994), Article 28 (1) (see current Article 24 (1) 10), Article 51 (1) (see current Article 24 (1)), and Article 57 (1) 4 (1) (see current Article 48 (1) 4 (see current Article 48 (1)) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of December 22, 194), and Article 57 (3) (1) (see current Article 4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act)
[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4048 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2456) Supreme Court Decision 96Nu2200 delivered on April 8, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1477)
Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Ho-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Head of Seocho Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu11357 delivered on November 13, 1997
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In order to ensure that income which is subject to income tax has been realized, even if it is not necessary until it is realized, it is considerably mature and finalized in terms of the possibility of realizing the income, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that there has been income in the mere stage that the right to generate income has been established without this degree. Whether the right to generate income is mature or finalized or not shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the nature, content, and law of each specific right and other actual matters (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu4048, Jul. 14, 1992; 96Nu200, Apr. 8, 1997).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, when the land on 16 parcels of non-party 1 was sold to the plaintiff on April 198, 198, the non-party 2 shall be paid 0,00,000 won to the non-party 10,000 won per annum, and the non-party 2 shall be paid 0,000 won per annum to the non-party 10,000 won per annum, and the non-party 2 shall be paid 0,000 won per annum to the non-party 10,000 won per annum for 0,000 won per annum for 10,000 won per annum for 10,000 won per annum for 10,000 won per annum for 10,000 won per annum for 20,000 won per annum for 10,000 won per annum for 20,000 won per annum for 193.
If facts are as above, 50,000,000 won of the agreed amount claim against the non-party 2 was determined by recognizing the plaintiff's claim by the non-party 2 under the agreement to reduce the amount of 200,000,000 won out of the agreed amount claim against the non-party 2. Therefore, the damages for delay claim is also determined by deducting the amount of 200,000,000 won under the above agreement from the total damages for delay as 251,711,775 won.
Nevertheless, the court below determined that damages for delay, which are the total income amount of the plaintiff's other income, was determined and realized as 251,711,775 won. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the occurrence and scope of income subject to taxation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
The appeal pointing this out is with merit.
Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)