[1] Standard for determining the time of attribution of income under the Income Tax Act

[2] The time when the right to a lawyer's fee income confirmed by a lawsuit is confirmed

[1] The right confirmation principle, which is the principle of determining the time when income is attributed under the Income Tax Act, is not the time when income is realized, but the income for the pertinent year is deemed to have accrued at the time of the occurrence of the right, and the income for the pertinent year is to be assessed in advance on the premise that it will be realized in the future. However, in such a right confirmation principle, the concept of "determined" cannot be defined as a general principle that is not an exception to the time when income is attributed, and the time when income is attributed should be determined on the basis of whether the income is considerably mature and finalized when considering the specific issues such as the management and control of income, the degree of the objective of income generated, and the time when the taxpayer is secured.

[2] Where a dispute arises between a payer of income and a beneficiary in regard to the existence and scope of a claim, and such dispute cannot be deemed to be clearly unfair in light of the circumstance and the nature of the case, it shall not be deemed that the right to receive income at the stage prior to the lawsuit becomes final and conclusive only at the time when the judgment became final and conclusive. Thus, if the dispute over the claim for fees becomes final and conclusive after a favorable judgment becomes final and conclusive as a result of the performance of the litigation, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive at the end of the lawsuit due to the dispute between the client and the client as to the existence of the claim for fees, the right of attorney shall be deemed to have become final and conclusive when the judgment on the claim for fees becomes final and conclusive, in light of the circumstances

[1] Articles 28(1) and 51(1) of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994; see Articles 24(1) and 51(1) of the former Income Tax Act; see Article 39(1) of the current Income Tax Act); Article 57(4)7 of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467, Dec. 31, 1994; see Article 48 subparag. 8 of the current Income Tax Act) / [2] Articles 28(1) and 51(1) of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994; see Article 39(1) of the current Income Tax Act); Article 57(4)7(7) of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 1467, Dec. 31, 1994)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Nu407 delivered on September 27, 198 (Gong1988, 1349) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8180 delivered on June 22, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2172) Supreme Court Decision 96Nu2200 delivered on April 8, 197 (Gong197Sang, 1477)

Dried smoke

Head of Western Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu21043 delivered on November 5, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The principle of confirmation of right, which is the principle of determining the time of attribution of income under the Income Tax Act, is not the time when income is realized, but the income of the year concerned is deemed as income at the time of the occurrence of the right, and it is the principle allowing a prior taxation on the premise that the income of the year concerned is realized in the future. However, the concept of "determination" in the principle of confirmation of right cannot be defined as the general principle without exception to the time of attribution of income. The determination of the time of attribution should be made on the basis of whether the income is considerably mature and finalized to the extent that there is a high possibility of realizing the income (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8180 delivered on June 22, 1993). In particular, if there is a dispute between the payer of income and the beneficiary about the existence and scope of the claim, and if the dispute cannot be deemed to be clearly unfair in light of the circumstances and the nature of the case, it cannot be said that the right before the lawsuit becomes final and conclusive at the time of 197Nu2987989, etc.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the plaintiff, an attorney-at-law, received part of the subject matter of the lawsuit from the non-party clan as a contingent fee when he accepted the litigation case, and the fact that the judgment in favor of the non-party clan on May 11, 1993 became final and conclusive on February 195, 195 as a result of the dispute between the non-party clan and the existence of the plaintiff's claim for remuneration, and that the judgment was final and conclusive on February 19, 1995, which became final and conclusive on February 195, 1995. In light of the records and the above legal principles, the court below determined that the plaintiff's right became final and conclusive at the time when the dispute over the plaintiff's claim for remuneration is not clearly unfair to return the responsibility to the plaintiff in light of its circumstances, etc.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)