(a) The time when income under the Income Tax Act accrues;

(b) A case where it is found that any income under a contract for remuneration entered into by a lawyer is specifically likely to accrue;

A. In order that income subject to income tax under the Income Tax Act has been realized, it is not required until the income has been realized, but at least the right to generate income is considerably mature in the possibility of its realization. This should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the nature, substance and various legal conditions of the specific right.

B. In a case where an attorney-at-law entered into a contract of remuneration with the payment of part of the land which became the object of an administrative disposition in a case where he accepts the representation of an administrative litigation from Nonparty (A) to 16, if the attorney-at-law entered into a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the administrative disposition, and the land which became the object of the administrative disposition has been determined in the name of a third party based on the invalid administrative disposition, and the registration of preservation of ownership and its transfer has been made in the name of the third party. If he partially won a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership, etc. against it, he/she sells part of the land that he/she received as remuneration from the litigant and receives the payment from the litigant, and then he/she has received the payment, it is reasonable to impose income tax on it by making it the business income at the time of receiving the payment.

(a)Article 51(b) of the Income Tax Act;

Supreme Court Decision 67Nu25 Decided June 20, 1967; 76Nu25 Decided December 27, 197; 79Nu296 Decided April 22, 1980

4,000 Man-soft-socie and 4 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul Yongsan Tax Director

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu152 delivered on February 17, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined together.

In order to realize the income subject to income tax under the Income Tax Act, it is not required until the income has been realized, but at least the right to generate income has to be confirmed to be considerably mature due to its feasibility (see Supreme Court Decision 67Nu25 delivered on June 20, 1967; Supreme Court Decision 76Nu25 delivered on December 27, 197; Supreme Court Decision 79Nu296 delivered on April 22, 1980, etc.). Specifically, the right to generate income is determined to be considerably mature in terms of its feasibility, but it cannot be uniformly standardized, considering the specific nature, content, and various legal conditions, etc.

According to the facts established by the court below, when the plaintiff, as an attorney at law around July 1967, 167, entrusted the above 2-year administrative litigation case claiming the cancellation of the above disposition of the authorization of reclamation of public waters from 16,00,000 to 16,00,000 won for the above 2-year 1,00,000 won of the public waters reclamation 621,945 and 16,000 won of the above 2-year 1,000 won of the above disposition of the public waters reclamation - 1,00 won of the above 2-year 1,00 won of the above public waters reclamation - 1,00 won of the above 2-year 1,00 won of the above disposition of the public waters reclamation - 1,000 won of the above 1,000 won of the public waters reclamation - 1,000 won of the above 2-year 1970 won of the above disposition of the public waters reclamation -15.

Therefore, income under the instant fee agreement is finally and finally determined in favor of the said administrative litigation case, and the said YYFFFF acquired the ownership of the reclaimed land upon obtaining approval from the Minister of Construction and Transportation, but most of the land was registered in the name of a third party, and the registration of preservation of ownership and the registration of transfer thereof was made in the name of the third party. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is justifiable, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete deliberation.

Meanwhile, according to the records, etc. of evidence No. 15-1 (Minutes of the YYA) of this case, it shall be deemed that the YYA consisting of 64 persons and 16 other persons with respect to the administrative litigation and civil litigation following the authorization of completion of reclamation of public waters of this case is delegated by the resolution of the YYA general meeting of the YA and 16 other persons with respect to the execution of the litigation and its actions accordingly, and there is no reason to hold that in the case of this case where the YYA received part of the land as remuneration and disposed of as a result of the partial winning judgment of the above civil litigation, the relation between the above repair contract and the sale and disposal of the land and the YYA as well as the relation between the YYA and the YAFA, which the 248,000 square, 115,230 square, the 230 square, which was disposed of as remuneration or with

Therefore, the appeal of this case 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 judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)