(a) The degree of accrual of the income subject to the income tax;

(b) Partial waiver of interest claims on loans made before settlement in preparation for non-performance of claims, and whether interest income is deducted from interest income;

A. In order to ensure that income has been realized as an object of taxation of income tax, even if it is unnecessary, it shall be determined to be considerably mature in terms of the possibility of realizing the right to generate income, and in this case, it shall not be uniformly determined whether the right to generate income has become final and conclusive with a certain fact, and it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the nature and content of each specific right, and the various de facto and de facto conditions.

B. If the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan contract with the Nonparty and made a provisional registration on the Non-Party’s house and did not repay the above loan to a settlement before the Plaintiff independently files a lawsuit based on the above provisional registration, the interest claim on the above loan shall, barring any special circumstances, be deemed to have been confirmed at least because the possibility of realization is considerably high to the extent of the secured value of the above collateral, and thus, the interest claim that has been due and due was due. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff renounced part of the interest claim prior to the above provisional registration by intimidation of the Non-Party and cancelled the above provisional registration, it cannot be deemed as a waiver of the established claim under the Income Tax Act, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a reason to deduct the interest income from the taxable object until

Article 28 (1) of the Income Tax Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 79Nu296 delivered on April 22, 1980, 79Nu441 delivered on February 10, 1981

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu833 delivered on August 22, 1983

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal by the defendant litigation performer.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that although the plaintiff's deceased non-party 1 was registered as the plaintiff's family member living together under the resident registration card, the above non-party 1 was living together with his wife non-party 2 and the plaintiff non-party 3, and non-party 4, who are the plaintiff's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's 1,960.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal of the defendant litigation performer.

Although the court below adopts the above-mentioned principle of confirmation of right to interest income under Article 28 (1) of the Income Tax Act, it is assumed that the above-mentioned right to interest income should be considerably mature in light of the possibility of its reality, and then the plaintiff receives 20,000 won as well as 8,40,000 won from the non-party 6 to the above-mentioned 6-mentioned 4% of the interest income. The court below determined that the plaintiff's interest income should be deducted from the above-mentioned 6-mentioned 4% of the interest income to the tax office, etc. It is reasonable to determine that the above non-party 6-mentioned 9% of the interest income should be deducted from the above-mentioned 6-mentioned 4% of the interest income to the extent of actual income and that the above-mentioned 6-mentioned interest income should be excluded from the above-mentioned 6-mentioned 9% of the interest income, and that the above-mentioned 9-year interest income should not be determined in light of the legal nature of the above-mentioned interest income claim.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed and remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)