Income generated time as taxable subject to income tax;

In order to ensure that income has been realized as a taxable object of income tax, even if it is unnecessary until it is realized, the right to receive income should be determined at least to the extent that it is considerably high in the possibility of realizing it, and therefore, it is merely a mere establishment of the right, and it cannot be deemed that there has yet been income.

Article 20 of the Income Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Nu25 Delivered on December 27, 1977

Plaintiff

The fixed number of the performers of the Namsan District Tax Office and the two dynamics;

Seoul High Court Decision 71Gu486 delivered on September 11, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be the father of the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. At the time of the disposition of imposing income tax (amended by Act No. 2169, Nov. 29, 1967; Act No. 2166, Nov. 29, 1966; Act No. 2169, Jan. 1, 1970) adopts the so-called principle of accrual (or right confirmation) as to the period for which income is determined. In view of the fact that the original income tax is final and conclusive, it should be imposed on actual income, even if it is unnecessary until the income is realized, at least the right to receive income is considerably high in terms of its realization, and it is merely established without this degree, and it shall not be deemed that there has been income as object of taxation of income tax, and the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been 40% of the total amount of 70Nu25, Dec. 27, 197 and 67Nu25, Jun. 20, 197).

In addition, in the event that the appeal is dismissed by the Supreme Court and the appeal is concluded in favor of the non-party, the payment of the agreed amount to be received by the plaintiff is replaced by the payment of the agreed amount to be received by the plaintiff, but in the case of reversal and return, the plaintiff was agreed to return the above amount to the non-party, and the defendant recognized that the disposition of this case was issued as the business income tax by deeming the fixed income of the corresponding year

The judgment of the court below held that the plaintiff's claim for the plaintiff's remuneration shall not be deemed to have been finalized unless the plaintiff's claim for the plaintiff's remuneration was finalized since the plaintiff's claim was affirmed by the final appeal of the Republic of Korea against which the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment of winning the case and the judgment of winning the case was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim for 48,984,240 won in this case is identical to the above recognition, it cannot be deemed to be the plaintiff's confirmed income, and there is no evidence supporting that the plaintiff's final income was generated at the time of this case's disposition, the disposition of this case is an unlawful disposition which misleads the plaintiff as to the occurrence of income, regardless of the existence of income which is subject to the business income tax at the time of the disposition.

2. As seen in the above confirmed facts, the remuneration for the litigation case that the plaintiff imported from the non-party, etc. was agreed to be 40% or 50% of the winning amount of the case where the plaintiff's winning case was decided in favor of the requesting party, and the case has not yet been determined, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's right to claim remuneration has occurred in this case. However, since it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's receiving one copy of the enforcement amount by the judgment of the provisional execution sentence of the court of second instance is a kind of provisional execution, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff's receiving one copy of the enforcement amount by the judgment of the court of second instance is a kind of provisional execution. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to this purport that the defendant's imposing the income tax by recognizing the provisional payment

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)