The time when income is confirmed under the attorney fee agreement and the Income Tax Act;

Even if the former Income Tax Act adopts the so-called principle of accrual concerning the period of income confirmation, the right to generate income should be determined considerably high in terms of the possibility of the reality, so it cannot be deemed that there was the confirmation of the right to receive income when the import case becomes final and conclusive solely on the basis of the initial attorney fee agreement, and the subsequent change in the creation of rights should be considered.

Article 14 of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 2051, Dec. 17, 1968)

Supreme Court Decision 67Nu25 Decided June 20, 1967

Plaintiff

The director of the Southern Busan District Tax Office shall be able to exhaust the litigation performers, stuffed, and stacked.

Daegu High Court Decision 74Gu38 delivered on January 8, 1976

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu High Court.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3 are first judged.

The judgment of the court below that the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2051 of Dec. 17, 1968) to be applied in this case adopts the so-called "the principle of accrual of rights" (or the principle of confirmation of rights) with respect to the period of income confirmation. However, in order to determine that income has accrued when considering that the final income would be imposed on the income to be actually imported, it should be confirmed that, even if it is unnecessary until the income has been actually realized, at least the right to generate income should be determined to the extent that it is considerably high in terms of the possibility of the reality. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the process of the establishment of the right to receive income does not reach such degree and only it is not yet deemed that there has been the income as the object of taxation of income tax (see this Court Decision 67Nu25, Jun. 20, 1967

However, in light of the contents and purport of the above evidence Nos. 7, 8 through 10, 12, and 17 (each judgment) in this case, it appears that the above case merely stated that the court below agreed to pay 40% of the total amount of fees to the plaintiff when it delegated the case to the plaintiff, such as a claim for ownership confirmation against 15 persons other than the non-party industrial bank at the time of original adjudication. The above case did not specify the specific amount and time of repayment as to the above case's case's agreed to pay 40% of the total amount of fees in favor of the non-party at the time of conclusion. The above case's agreed to pay 0% of the agreed amount to the plaintiff at the time of conclusion. The above case's agreed to pay 0% of the agreed amount to the non-party's agreed to pay 50% of the agreed amount to the plaintiff at the time of the above case's conclusion of the contract. The above school juristic person's agreed to pay the above 50% of the agreed amount to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the court below determined that the case was confirmed in favor of the plaintiff on the sole basis of the initial fee agreement with the above school juristic person, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion as to the subsequent circumstances, and determined that all of the amounts of 28,000,000 won for the business income for the second term in 1968 as the plaintiff's income and the defendant's disposition of this case was lawful, which imposed an additional income tax on the plaintiff as to this whole, by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the time of confirmation of income and the amount of such income under the Income Tax Act, which affected the judgment, the court below cannot be maintained from this point.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded without examining the plaintiff's other grounds of appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yu Tae-hun (Presiding Justice)