http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
최용환,좌승희 경기연구원 2009 경기개발연구원 기본연구 Vol.2009 No.11
North Korea has survived the era of chain collapse of socialist countries across the world at the end of the 20th century. How is it possible? What are the main pillars buttressing the North Korean regime? Can North Korea change? Or can it be changed? What have been the effects of ROK's North Korean policy so far in changing North Korea, if there are any? Also, What kinds of policy should ROK adopt if it wants to change North Korea in its interests. These are the questions that this research has and tries to answer. This research defines the desirable directions of North Korean change as follows; politically more democratic, economically more market based, and socially more open. Unfortunately, North Korea lacks in all the major elements which brought forth changes in the traditional socialist countries in Eastern Europe and other areas. North Korean leaders are still struggling in the dilemma between reform and opening on the one hand and regime survival and maintenance on the other. North Korea should have more reformist policies if it wants to escape from its deep rooted economic mires and troubles. But reformist policies would threaten the regime stability and the state integrity. Thus, North Korean leaders are very reluctant in adopting the reformist policies and keep adhering to the so called "self-help" strategies. However, these outdated and pre-modern strategies would not rescue North Korea from its structural economic quagmires. This is a real dilemma for the North Korean regime. ROK's North Korean policy also shows non-effectiveness in changing North Korea. ROK aims for the change of North Korea to become a normal state in international society and, ultimately, the peaceful unification of the Korean peninsula. However, ROK's North Korean policy has been circling between the enforcement and the engagement, depending on the governing party. There has been no middle ground for dealing with North Korea. Based on all these observations and analysis, this research suggests "Multi Dimensional Engagement toward North Korea" as a way of changing North Korea. The essence of this approach is that ROK should try to engage North Korea in a more multi dimensional and complicated way. It means that ROK should pursue all together recovery and build up of North Korean economy, humanitarian assistance, North Korean version of Perestroika and Glasnost, social integration of North and South Koreans, management of ideological conflicts within ROK and its citizens while continuously making efforts in solving political and military issues with North Korea. North Korean nuclear programs are a real threat to ROK and other countries. However, the change of North Korea will lead to the peaceful solution of these nuclear threats. The multi dimensional engagement would contribute to the change of North Korea.
국제조세법규 적용을 위한 소득구분 및 원천지 결정 - 과소자본세제 초과이자 및 미등록 특허사용료에관한 판례를 중심으로 -
최용환 한국국제조세협회 2019 조세학술논집 Vol.35 No.2
This article analyses the sources of law and the regulatory structure of international tax law, as applicable to international transactions, with a focus on the relationship between tax treaties and domestic tax laws. In doing so, the article assumes the following five situations: Ordinarily, it is common that the tax treaty directly affects domestic tax law, thereby limiting the effect of domestic tax law (Situation 1), but there are also situations where the tax treaty and the domestic tax law refer to each other in their application (Situation 2) or where the tax treaty becomes the basis for a tax assessment or a measure against double taxation in accordance with domestic tax law (Situation 3). There are also situations where preservation or saving clauses apply, as a result of which the tax treaty has no effect and domestic tax law applies (Situation 4). However, the situation that is most problematic in practice is that where a tax treaty and domestic tax law conflict with each other (Situation 5), and the Supreme Court cases discussed in this article directly and indirectly relate to this situation. In this regard, Supreme Court Decision 2015Du2710 dated February 28, 2018 concerns income classification of interest that was received in excess of the thin capitalization rules applying to a domestic branch of a foreign company. In this case, the Supreme Court held that although income classification under the relevant tax treaty “applies despite Article 93 of the Corporate Income Tax Act” by virtue of Article 28 of the Law on the Coordination of International Tax Affairs, this only affects the question of taxation right of the source country or the applicable tax rate, etc., but not treatment of the income under domestic tax law itself. This decision is meaningful in that it clarified the foregoing, but considering the interpretation of tax treaties discussed above, the author cannot agree with the Supreme Court’s interpretation. Meanwhile, Supreme Court Decision 2016Du42883 dated December 27, 2018 reaffirmed the existing case law that where a U.S. company registered its patents only overseas but not in Korea, the relevant royalties cannot be considered Korean-source income. This finding of the Supreme Court is reasonable and justified considering that determining “use” by reference to the location of the patent’s registration is a basic principle reflecting economic relations and which further provides an appropriate standard for allocating taxing rights under tax treaties with regard to royalties. It further appropriately reflects the fact that the intention of the parties also is that the royalties are an agreed payment or compensation for use of the underlying registered patents. 이 글에서는 국제거래에 적용되는 국제조세 관련 법규의 법원(法源)과 규범구조를 조세조약과 국내세법의 관계를 중심으로 5가지 상황으로 분석하여 보았다. 조세조약이 국내세법에 직접 영향을 미치는 것으로, 국내세법의 효력을 제한하는 상황이 일반적인 경우이고(상황 1), 조세조약과 국내세법을 적용할 때 조약상 정의규정이 있으면 이에 따르되 없다면 차용개념에 따라 국내세법의 정의를 사용하는 등 서로 참고하는 상황이 발생하거나(상황 2), 조세조약이 국내세법에 따른 과세처분 또는 이중과세방지 조치의 근거가 되는 경우(상황 3)도 있다. Preservation조항이나 Saving Clause가 적용되어 조세조약이 효력을 갖지 못하고 국내세법이 적용되는 경우(상황 4)도 있다. 그러나 실무상 가장 문제되는 것은 조세조약과 국내세법의 충돌이 발생하는 경우(상황 5)인데 조세조약이 특별법으로서 국내세법에 우선하여 적용된다고 보는 것이 타당하다고 본다. 대상판결 1,2도 상황 5가 사실상 직, 간접적으로 문제된다고 볼 수 있다. 이와 관련, 외국법인의 국내지점에 대한 과소자본세제 한도 초과이자의 소득 구분이 문제된 대법원 2018. 2. 28. 선고 2015두2710 판결(이하 ‘대상판결 1’)은 구 국제조세조정에 관한 법률 제28조에 따라 조세조약상의 소득 구분이 “법인세법 제93조에도 불구하고 적용된다”고 명시하고 있음에도 원천지국의 과세권 유무나 제한세율 등에는 영향을 미치지만, 그로써 국내세법상의 취급까지 달라지게 되는 것은 아니라는 점을 밝힌 점에서 의미가 있으나 앞서 살펴본 조약해석론에 비추어 타당한 해석이라 볼 수 없다. 반면, 대법원 2018. 12. 27. 선고 2016두42883 판결(이하 ‘대상판결 2’)은 미국법인이 특허권을 국외에서 등록하였을 뿐 국내에는 등록하지 않은 경우에는 이에 대한 특허권 사용료를 국내원천소득으로 볼 수 없다는 종전 판결을 다시금 확인하면서 미등록 특허사용료의 경우 국내에서 특허권의 사용자체가 존재하지 않는다고 보았다. 이와 같이 특허권의 “사용” 여부를 특허의 등록지를 기준으로 확정하는 것은 등록된 곳에 경제적으로 보호가치 있는 법률상 이익이 존재한다는 경제적 연관성을 고려하는 사법상 기본원칙에 따른 것으로, 지적 재산권의 사용료에 대한 조세조약상 과세권 배분기준으로도 적합한 기준이 된다는 점, 당사자의 진의 또한 등록된 특허권에 대한 합의금 내지 사용대가라는 점에서 대상판결의 입장은 사적자치의 원칙에 부합하는 타당한 해석으로 생각된다.