헌법상 혼인의 보호와 주택세제

백제흠 한국지방세학회 2020 지방세논집 Vol.7 No.3

Amidst the grave situation where marriage and family life is in jeopardy due to rise in non-marriage and low birth rates, this article evaluates the taxation system for housing, which is the living foundation for marriage and family life, and suggests improvement measures in terms of the constitutional protection of marriage. Marriage protection under the Constitution is a basic right, composed of right to liberty, right to equality, social rights and institutional security. The right to liberty and equality in terms of marriage protection under the Constitution is subject to strict constitutional review based on the principle of proportionality and is protected from unjust infringement by the state; whereas the principle of prohibition of excessive restriction is applied for the social rights aspect of the protection of marriage. Further, in order to ensure marriage and family life, active financial support by the state is required. In terms of tax law, marriage protection under the Constitution firstly requires the prohibition of discriminatory taxation for married couples, and active support by tax expenditure on marriage is further desired. Housing is subject to taxation at the stage of acquisition, possession, and transfer. The current housing tax system defines a family community formed by marriage as a household, and gives tax benefits to a household owning a single house while imposing heavy tax burden on owners of multiple houses. Such current household-oriented housing tax system, where tax exemption and heavy taxation is determined based one house per one household regime, gives both married couples and couples about to be married, compared to unmarried people or couples in de facto marriages, an incentive to deviate from marriage and attempt to reduce the tax burden. This is due to the fact that unlike unmarried people who are subject to tax benefits even if they each own a house, married couples can only receive tax reduction for a single house as a couple and bear a heavy tax burden for owning multiple houses. This violates the constitutional protection of marriage by discriminating against married communities in favor of unmarried people or couples in de facto marriage and by violating free decision making for marriage. As a measure to improve such household-oriented housing tax system in light of the constitutional protection of marriage, it is necessary to change the taxation unit from an individual unit system to a married unit system. For the married unit system, tax benefits should be granted to one house per person for a married couple in taxing the acquisition, possession and transfer of a house and thereby removing the discriminatory tax burden for marriages. Alternatively, even if the household-oriented system is maintained, it is reasonable to grant tax benefits to two houses for the constitutional protection of marriage, thereby allowing a similar outcome to the married unit system. The individual housing tax system should also be reorganized so as to constitutionally protect marriage by eliminating unconstitutional elements regarding additional residency requirements for special long-term holding deductions and the application of the 12% gift and acquisition tax rate for gifts between married couples. Such improvement plan for the housing tax system not only prevents violations of the right to freedom and equality to ensure constitutional protection of marriage, but also actively guarantees the protection of marriage as a social right in the era of non-marriage and low birth rates. 본 논문에서는 비혼과 저출산으로 혼인과 가족생활이 위협받고 있는 상황에서 헌법상 혼인의 보호의 관점에서 혼인과 가족 생활의 터전이 되는 주택에 대한 과세제도를 평가하고이에 대한 문제점 및 개선방안을 제시하였다. 헌법상 혼인의 보호는 기본권으로서 자유권과평등권 및 사회권의 성격과 제도보장의 성격을 가지고 있고 기본권으로서의 자유권과 평등권에 대하여 비례원칙에 의한 엄격한 위헌심사가 이루어지고 있으며 사회권으로서 혼인의보호에 관하여는 혼인과 가족생활을 보장하기 위한 국가의 적극적인 재정지원이 요청된다. 주택은 취득, 보유 및 양도의 단계에서 과세가 되는데, 현행 주택세제는 혼인으로 구성되는가족공동체를 세대로 규정한 다음 기본적으로 1세대 1주택에 대해서는 과세상의 혜택을 부여하면서도 다주택자에 대하여 과중한 조세부담을 지우고 있다. 1세대 1주택을 기준으로 비과세와 중과가 결정되는 세대중심주의의 주택세제는 비혼자나 사실혼 관계의 부부와 비교하여혼인을 앞두고 있는 남녀로 하여금 세대를 구성하지 못하게 하거나 혼인 중에 있는 부부 모두에게 세대분리를 하도록 하여 조세부담의 절감을 시도할 유인을 주게 된다. 독신의 남녀는각기 1주택을 보유하더라도 과세상 혜택을 받을 수 있는 반면 혼인한 남녀는 부부로서 1주택에 대해서만 조세감면의 혜택을 받을 수 있고 다주택에 대해서는 과중한 조세부담을 지기 때문이다. 이는 혼인 공동체를 비혼자나 사실혼관계의 부부에 비하여 차별하는 것이자 자유로운 혼인의 의사결정을 침해하는 것으로 헌법상 혼인의 보호에 위반되는 문제점이 있다. 현행 세대중심주의의 주택세제의 개선방안으로 우선 헌법상 혼인의 보호의 관점에서 과세단위를 개인단위주의에서 부부단위주의로 변경하는 과세체계의 개편이 필요하다. 부부단위주의에 의하여 주택의 취득, 보유 및 양도단계의 과세에 있어서 부부 주택 2채에 대해서는과세상의 혜택을 부여하는 것이 타당하다. 또한, 세대중심제도를 유지하는 경우에도 헌법상혼인의 보호의 차원에서 부부 기준의 주택수 판정을 2채로 하여 부부단위주의와 유사한 수준의 과세상 혜택을 부여할 필요가 있고 개별 주택세제에서도 장기보유특별공제의 거주요건추가, 부부간 증여에 대한 12% 증여취득세율의 적용 등 위헌 요소를 제거하여 헌법상 혼인의 보호에 부합하도록 주택세제를 정비하여야 할 것이다. 주택세제에 대한 개선방안은 헌법상 혼인의 보호의 기본권으로서의 자유권과 평등권을 침해하지 않고 나아가 비혼과 저출산시대에서 국가가 사회권으로서의 혼인의 보호를 적극 보장하는 것이기도 하다.

권두언

백제흠 한국지방세연구원 2021 지방세포럼 Vol.55 No.-

Meaning and Basis of Judgment on “Place of Effective Management” under the Corporate Income Tax Law of Korea: Judgment of January 14, 2016, 2014Du8896, Supreme Court of Korea

백제흠 서울대학교 아시아태평양법연구소 2018 Journal of Korean Law Vol.17 No.2

Previously, the Korean Corporate Income Tax Law considered the head office location as a standard for determination of a domestic corporation. While it additionally introduced the concept of place of effective management in 2005, its relationship with the existing determination standard, that is, location of head office, as well as definition and relevant standards were not clearly defined. Once a foreign corporation is treated as a domestic corporation, it faces a significant tax effect as it bears, among others, unlimited tax liability toward the domestic tax authorities. Place of effective management is a general concept which has great influence on the status of taxpayers under taw laws and may result in serious infringement of predictability and legal stability of international investments. Since the definition of place of effective management is too broad, it needs to be narrowly interpreted. In order to derive a reasonable interpretation of the definition and judgment standard regarding place of effective management, it is necessary to conduct a comparative analysis by reviewing i) Discussions of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (the “OECD”) on the concept of “place of effective management” under tax treaties, which is the origin of the term, ii) relevant legislation of other countries, and ii) the permanent establishment taxation (the “PE taxation) and controlled foreign corporation taxation (the “CFC taxation”), which are directly related to the new standard under the domestic tax laws for both inbound and outbound transactions. First, in relation to the concept of place of effective management under tax treaties, the factors used to determine the residency of dual resident entities, that is, intent or purpose of tax avoidance, may be considered to restrict the applicable scope of the principle of place of effective management. Further, based on the fact that the place of effective management principle has a more severe tax effect than PE taxation and CFC taxation, the requirements for PE taxation and CFC taxation shall also be fulfilled for inbound transactions and outbound transactions. Therefore, in order to apply the place of effective management principle, a tax evasion purpose needs to exist, and there must be additional and important circumstances in addition to the requirements for PE taxation and CFC taxation. Recently, the Supreme Court rendered that the place of effective management refers to a location where key management and commercial decisions necessary for business operations are implemented, and factors such as the location where meeting of the board of directors is held, location where the chief executive officer performs, etc. shall be taken into account. In particular, with regard to a foreign corporation’s transfer of residence to Korea, the ruling is significant in that it imposed a strict standard by requiring discontinuance of relevancy with the previous place of effective management. This, while not being explicit, conforms with the discussions in this study to the effect that the place of effective management principle shall be deemed as a restrictive concept which supplements the head office location standard. Previously, the Korean Corporate Income Tax Law considered the head office location as a standard for determination of a domestic corporation. While it additionally introduced the concept of place of effective management in 2005, its relationship with the existing determination standard, that is, location of head office, as well as definition and relevant standards were not clearly defined. Once a foreign corporation is treated as a domestic corporation, it faces a significant tax effect as it bears, among others, unlimited tax liability toward the domestic tax authorities. Place of effective management is a general concept which has great influence on the status of taxpayers under taw laws and may result in serious infringement of predictability and legal stability of international investments. Since the definition of place of effective management is too broad, it needs to be narrowly interpreted. In order to derive a reasonable interpretation of the definition and judgment standard regarding place of effective management, it is necessary to conduct a comparative analysis by reviewing i) Discussions of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (the “OECD”) on the concept of “place of effective management” under tax treaties, which is the origin of the term, ii) relevant legislation of other countries, and ii) the permanent establishment taxation (the “PE taxation) and controlled foreign corporation taxation (the “CFC taxation”), which are directly related to the new standard under the domestic tax laws for both inbound and outbound transactions. First, in relation to the concept of place of effective management under tax treaties, the factors used to determine the residency of dual resident entities, that is, intent or purpose of tax avoidance, may be considered to restrict the applicable scope of the principle of place of effective management. Further, based on the fact that the place of effective management principle has a more severe tax effect than PE taxation and CFC taxation, the requirements for PE taxation and CFC taxation shall also be fulfilled for inbound transactions and outbound transactions. Therefore, in order to apply the place of effective management principle, a tax evasion purpose needs to exist, and there must be additional and important circumstances in addition to the requirements for PE taxation and CFC taxation. Recently, the Supreme Court rendered that the place of effective management refers to a location where key management and commercial decisions necessary for business operations are implemented, and factors such as the location where meeting of the board of directors is held, location where the chief executive officer performs, etc. shall be taken into account. In particular, with regard to a foreign corporation’s transfer of residence to Korea, the ruling is significant in that it imposed a strict standard by requiring discontinuance of relevancy with the previous place of effective management. This, while not being explicit, conforms with the discussions in this study to the effect that the place of effective management principle shall be deemed as a restrictive concept which supplements the head office location standard.

소득의 역외유보를 통한 조세회피의 법적 구조

백제흠 한국세법학회 2005 조세법연구 Vol.11 No.2

특집 _ 기업과세의 현안 쟁점 : 유형적 포괄주의 과세조항의 해석과 그 한계 -이자소득에 관한 구 소득세법 제16조 제1항 제13호의 해석론을 중심으로-

백제흠 서울대학교 금융법센터 2013 BFL Vol.57 No.-

국제조세법의 체계와 그 개편방안에 관한 연혁적 고찰

백제흠 한국국제조세협회 2020 조세학술논집 Vol.36 No.2

Almost a century has passed since the first introduction of model tax treaties as a result of efforts by the League of Nations to relieve the burden of double taxation. During the last century, international trade and investment increased rapidly with the institutional support from tax treaties and the global economy truly became one market. Along with the increase in international trade, the number of international tax disputes also rose steeply in Korea. From the mid-2000s the dispute cases not only increased in number and size, but they also became more complex and sophisticated. Several leading Supreme Court decisions were rendered, various foreign tax rules were adopted into the tax system, and continuous amendments have been made. Even though international tax law has now become one of the main fields of tax law in Korea following the adoption of new tax laws and an accumulation of relevant court decisions, the definition and general structure of international tax law have not yet been further reviewed. The International Tax Coordination Law (“ITCL”), the Income Tax Law (“ITL”), the Corporate Income Tax Law (“CITL”) and tax treaties are some of the main international tax laws in Korea. Generally, basic taxation principles regarding the taxpayer, tax base and taxing methodology, along with rules for adjusting double taxation are stipulated in the ITL or CITL, whereas rules to prevent tax avoidance schemes are stipulated in the ITCL. Though the basic framework of international tax law in Korea does not have serious defects, miscellaneous or peculiar provisions are scattered in separate tax laws, rules allowing for the application of tax treaties are generally stipulated in the ITL and the CITL, while relevant procedural provisions are also scattered throughout the abovementioned laws. Even more, these international tax related provisions scattered across various laws mainly focus on income tax, whereas international tax rules with respect to property tax or consumption tax are very scarce. The enactment of the ITCL in 1995 set a major milestone for the development of international tax law in Korea, and there has been notable changes to the international tax field since then. Now that a quarter century has passed, it is a good time to revisit the structure of international tax law for possible modifications. Meanwhile, there has also been an initiative to change the traditional international tax rules recently. In the past, international taxation focused on transactions of tangible goods that take up the space of certain places for to determine whether to tax physical elements, and fixed places to determine whether to tax human elements. However, as digitalization of international transactions have accelerated in the 21st century and as it is becoming increasingly easier for taxpayers to travel, the significance of fixed places of human and physical elements has decreased. Along with this phenomenal change, it has also been pointed out that multinational corporations (“MNC”) avoid tax through. Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS”). The OECD responded to this with the BEPS project and brought forth 15 Action Plans. In particular, instead of revising the pre-existing bi-lateral treaties, the OECD introduced the Multilateral Instrument to implement the changes for tax treaties and proposed to establish an Inclusive Framework, especially for issues regarding the digital economy as a Post-BEPS project. It is expected that a new set of international tax rules would be introduced to change the existing frame of international tax, and it is expected that Korea would adopt a number of such new tax rules. This paper analyzes the characteristics of international transactions and reviews international tax law focusing on international income tax law, while examining international property tax, international consumption tax and international tax procedure law as separate areas. This paper also seeks ways t... 국제연맹의 주도로 이중과세 방지를 위해 마련된 조세조약의 모델규범이 등장한지도 어언 백년이 다 되어간다. 지난 세기 다수의 조세조약의 제도적 뒷받침을 통해 전세계적으로 국제교역과 투자가 급증하였고, 지구촌이 하나의 시장을 이루는 글로벌 경제의 시대로 자리매김하였다. 국제거래의 증가에 따라 우리나라에서도 국제조세 분쟁이 늘어왔고, 2000년대 중반부터는 그 불복 규모와 수가 대폭 증가하였으며 질적으로도 복잡ㆍ다기한 양상을 보이기 시작했다. 대법원에서는 선례적인 국제조세 판례들이 다수 선고되었고, 세제상으로도 외국의 다양한 국제조세 규범이 도입되었으며 그에 대한 개정작업도 계속 진행되어 왔다. 신규 세제의 도입 및 판례의 양산에 따라 국제조세 분야가 우리나라 세법의 주요 영역으로 등장했지만 아직 국제조세 규범의 명확한 정의와 그 규범의 전반적 체계에 대한 검토가 이루어지지는 못하였다. 우리나라의 주요 국제조세규범으로는 소득세법과 법인세법, 국제조세조정에 관한 법률(이하 ‘국제조세조정법’) 및 조세조약을 들 수 있다. 대체로 국제거래로부터 발생한 소득의 납세자, 과세대상 및 과세방식에 관한 기본적 과세규정과 이중과세 조정규정은 소득세법과 법인세법에, 조세회피 방지규정은 국제조세조정법에 위치하고 있다. 우리나라의 국제조세법은 그 기본적 얼개에 큰 문제는 없지만 하나의 법률 내에 다소 이질적인 규정들이 혼재되어 있고, 조세조약에 관한 특례규정이 소득세법과 법인세법에 다수 규정되어 있으며, 절차적 규정도 개별 실체법에 흩어져 위치하고 있다는 것이 특징이다. 그나마도 그 규범들은 소득세제의 영역에 관한 것이고 재산세제와 소비세제 분야에서의 국제조세 법규는 그 수조차 매우 적다. 1995년 국제조세조정법이 도입되면서 국제조세 발전의 큰 계기가 되었지만, 그로부터 4반세기가 지나는 동안 국제조세 분야에 큰 변화가 있었으므로, 현시점에서 국제조세법의 전반적 체계에 대한 분석 및 정비의 필요성이 있다. 한편, 근자에 들어 전통적 국제조세 규범에도 새로운 변화가 시도되고 있다. 기존의 국제조세규범은 물적요소인 과세대상으로 특정 장소를 차지하는 유형재화거래에 초점이 맞춰져 있었고 인적요소인 납세자에 대해서는 그의 소재지가 고정적이다는 전제에서 마련되었다. 그러나 21세기에 들어서면서 국제거래의 디지털화가 심화되고 납세자의 이동도 자유로워지면서 인적ㆍ물적 요소의 소재지가 가지는 의미가 감소하였다. 국제거래의 그러한 변화와 함께 조세부담을 회피하기 위한 다국적 기업들의 세원잠식과 소득이전(Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, BEPS)의 문제점들이 지적되어 오자 OECD는 BEPS 프로젝트로 대응하면서 15개의 실행방안을 수립하였는데, 조세조약에 관한 실행방안의 구현으로 기존의 양자조약의 개정 대신 다자조약의 방식을 도입하였고 특히 디지털거래에 대한 대응문제는 Post-BEPS 프로젝트로 삼아 새로운 포괄적 이행체제의 수립을 추진하여 그 결과물을 목전에 두고 있다. 그 과정에서 전세계적으로 기존의 국제조세 규범을 변경하는 새로운 국제조세 제도가 만들어지고 우리나라에서도 다수의 신규 규범의 도입이 전망되고 있다. 이 글에서는 국제거래의 특성을 분석하여 이를 토대로 세법으로서의 국제조세법의 고유영역을 국제소득세제를 중심으로 국제재산세제와 국제소비세제, ...

지방세법상 부동산신탁의 과세 쟁점

백제흠 서울대학교 금융법센터 2019 BFL Vol.94 No.-

租稅回避行爲의 否認과 GAAR의 機能

백제흠 한국세법학회 2017 조세법연구 Vol.23 No.2

해외지주회사의 과세문제

백제흠 한국세법학회 2009 조세법연구 Vol.15 No.2

해외지주회사는 역외에서 외국자회사의 주식 또는 출자지분의 보유를 주된 사업으로 하는 외국법인으로서 해외사업에 있어서 기업경영구조, 경영효율성, 기업위험관리 등 여러 가지 측면에서 유용성을 발휘할 수 있다. 그러나 우리나라는 해외지주회사에 대해서 그 전환과정에서 제한적으로 단기간 과세이연만을 허용해 주고 있고 지주회사의 운용과정에서도 법인간 배당에 대하여 이중과세를 제대로 조정해 주고 있지 않으며 피지배외국법인세제를 적용하여 유보소득 배당간주 과세를 하는 등 우리 기업의 해외지주회사의 이용을 사실상 억제하고 있다. 해외시장에서의 기업의 경쟁력은 조세부담의 다과에 의해서도 결정된다. 우리 기업들이 해외시장에서 이중과세의 부담을 지지 않고 해외지주회사를 이용하는 다른 외국 기업들과 경쟁하면서 해외지주회사를 이용하지 못한다면 이는 우리 기업의 경쟁력의 하락으로 이어질 것이다. 이러한 점에 비추어 해외지주회사의 이용을 제한하는 현행 해외지주회사 과세제도는 개선되어야 할 것이다. 우선 지주회사로의 전환과정에서 거액의 양도소득세의 부담을 완화하고 간접외국납부세액 공제제도도 대폭 개선해서 지주회사 운용과정에서의 이중 과세문제를 해결해 주어야 할 것이다. 특히 해외지주회사의 이용에 주된 걸림돌인 현행 피지배외국법인세제를 대폭 개정하여 특수관계자의 인정범위를 축소하고 조세부담률 판정기준도 낮추며 동일 지역 적용 제외 요건도 유럽 외에 남미, 아시아 등으로 확대하여 그 과세범위를 축소할 필요가 있다. An overseas holding company(“OHC”) is a foreign entity that is primarily engaged in holding shares or ownership interest in foreign subsidiaries. An OHC can be useful from various perspectives such as structure of corporate management, efficient management and corporate risk management. Despite such useful value of an OHC, the current tax law does not encourage the use of it as ⅰ) the tax deferral upon conversion on an OHC is rather limited;ⅱ) the double taxation remains;and ⅲ) profits accumulated in an OHC can be taxed as deemed dividend under the controlled foreign corporation regime without actual distribution of the profits. Corporate competitiveness in the international market can sometimes be determined by the weight of tax burden that it bears. The inability to utilize an OHC by domestic companies can lead to lower competitiveness in the international market, particularly so when compared with other foreign companies that are able to utilize OHCs without the burden of double taxation. In light of this, the current tax system restricting the utilization of an OHC should be reformed:the burden of double taxation should be lifted by relieving capital gains tax upon conversion of an existing company to an OHC and by expanding the scope of indirect foreign tax credits. In particular, the current controlled foreign corporation regime, which is considered to be the major obstacle to the utilization of an OHC, can be revised in such a way that ⅰ) the scope of a related party for the purpose of controlled foreign corporation is narrowed;ⅱ) the tax rate for determining a low tax jurisdiction is reduced ; and ⅲ) the exception for same jurisdiction is expanded to include South and Latin America as well as Asia in addition European Union.

當初處分과 增額更正處分의 關係 -국세기본법 제22조의2 제1항의 해석을 중심으로-

백제흠 한국행정판례연구회 2011 행정판례연구 Vol.16 No.1

당초처분과 증액경정처분과의 관계에 대해서 세법상 아무런 규정이 없어 종래의 판례와 학설은 소위 흡수설의 입장에서 당초처분은 증액경정처분에 흡수되어 증액경정처분만이 항소소송의 대상이 되고 당초처분의 위법사유를 증액경정처분의 항고소송에서 제한 없이 함께 주장할 수 있었다. 그런데, 2002. 12. 18. 개정 국세기본법이 제22조의2 제1항에서 당초처분과 증액경정처분과의 관계에 대하여 명문 규정을 두었는데, 동 조항은 “세법의 규정에 의하여 당초 확정된 세액을 증가시키는 경정은 당초 확정된 세액에 관한 이 법 또는 세법에서 규정하고 있는 권리·의무관계에 영향을 미치지 아니한다”고 규정하였다. 그러나 위 규정만으로는 당초처분과 경정처분의 관계가 명확하지 않았으므로 양자의 관계에 대한 학설상의 논란이 계속되었고 대상판례는 국세기본법 제22조의2의 신설 이후의 대법원의 입장을 보여주는 최초의 판례이다. 대상판례에 의하면 동조의 신설 이후에도 당초처분에 대한 증액경정처분이 있는 경우 종전과 동일하게 증액경정처분만이 항소소송의 심판대상이 되고 납세자는 그 항고소송에서 당초처분의 위법사유를 함께 주장할 수 있다고 판시하였다. 다만 항고소송의 취소세액의 범위에 대해서는 명확한 입장을 표명하지는 않았으나 국세기본법 제22조의2 제1항의 입법취지가 당초처분의 세액만큼은 그 불복을 제한하려는데 있으므로 당초처분상의 세액에 대해서는 불가쟁력이 발생한 것으로 보아 간접적으로 취소세액의 범위를 증액경정된 금액에 한정하는 것으로 보인다. 대상판례가 국세기본법 제22조의2 제1항에 따른 당초처분과 경정처분과의 관계에 대하여 종전의 대법원 판례와 같이 심판대상과 심리의 범위에서 병존설이 아니라 흡수설의 입장을 계속하여 견지한 것은 당초처분과 경정처분이 하나의 납세의무를 구체화하기 위하여 밀접·불가분의 관계에 있는 점, 조세소송의 심판범위에 대해 대법원 판례가 총액주의의 입장을 취하는 점 등에 비추어 타당한 것으로 판단된다. 그러나 국세기본법 제22조의2 제1항의 확정을 당초처분의 불가쟁력으로 인한 세액 확정으로 보아 취소되는 세액의 범위를 증액경정된 세액에 국한한 것은 다음과 같은 점에서 의문이 있다. 첫째, 국세기본법 제22조의2 제1항이 납세의무 성립과 확정의 절에 있으면서 제2항에서도 감액경정과 관련하여 확정된 세액이라는 표현을 사용하고 있는바, 이 경우의 확정은 불가쟁력에 따른 확정이 아니라 납세의무의 확정을 의미하는 것으로 제1항의 세액의 확정을, 제2항의 납세의무의 확정과는 다른 불가쟁력으로 해석하는 것은 조문 체계상 모순되는 것이라는 점, 둘째, 대상판례가 심판대상과 심리의 범위에 있어서는 당초처분이 증액경정처분에 흡수되어 소멸하는 흡수설의 입장을 취하면서 취소세액의 범위에서는 세액 확정의 의미를 당초처분이 유효함을 전제로 한 불가쟁력으로 인한 확정으로 보는 것은 논리적으로 상충된다는 점, 셋째, 동조 제1항이 이 법 또는 세법에서 규정하는 권리의무 관계에 영향을 미치지 않는다고 규정한 것은 실체법적 권리관계에 영향을 미치지 않는다는 것을 의미하는데, 그 문언의 범위를 벗어나 쟁송법적 권리관계의 확정을 의미하는 것으로 보는 것은 문언의 가능한 해석 범위를 넘는다는 점 등에서 문제가 있다. 이 부분에 대한 대법원의 판례의 직접적인 ... There is no provision in the tax law defining the relationship between the original assessment and a subsequent corrective assessment to increase taxable income. Taxpayers were able to fight the illegality of the original assessment in a claim based on the subsequent corrective assessment under the theory that the original assessment is absorbed into the subsequent assessment, which was the position taken by academics and precedents. However, on December 18, 2002, National Tax Basic Law was revised to newly defined the relationship between an original assessment and a subsequent assessment in Article 22-1, Paragraph 1, which states that “any correction which causes an increase in the amount of tax originally determined under the tax-related Acts shall not affect the relations of rights or duties provided for in this Act or any tax-related Acts with respect to amount of tax originally determined.” However, this newly added provision alone could not clearly define the relationship between the original assessment and a subsequent corrective assessment, therefore, academic controversy on the relationship continued. The case in this paper is the first Supreme Court case since the new provision of National Tax Basic Law 22-2 came into being. According to this case, even after the above mentioned provision is newly added into the National Tax Basic Law, the court indicated that the only the subsequent corrective assessment is subject to a judgment in a lawsuit and the illegality of the original assessment can be argued in such lawsuit. The court did not specify its view clearly about the scope of the amount of tax to be cancelled, but the legislative intent behind Article 22-2, Paragraph 1 of the National Tax Basic Law is to limit the ability to appeal the amount originally determined thereby indirectly limiting the amount of tax to be cancelled to an amount that has been increased by the subsequent assessment. This case continues to maintain the view of absorption theory which was the position taken by previous Supreme Court precedents with respect to the relationship between an original assessment and a subsequent corrective assessment, which I think is appropriate for the fact that i) the original assessment and the subsequent corrective assessment are closely related and cannot be separated to be crystallized as one tax liability; and ii) the Supreme Court precedents take a view of total tax amount theory with respect to the scope of judgment in tax litigations. However, it is questionable that the amount of tax to be cancelled should be limited to the amount increased in the subsequent corrective assessment by deeming the original assessment has been determined to be non-appealable for the following reasons: First, Article 22-2, Paragraph 1 is contained in the Section of Creation and Determination of Tax Liability, but the Paragraph 2 is about the reduction of tax, but still uses the expression of ‘determination’. Therefore, ‘determination’ in this case means determination of tax liability, not determination of ‘non-appealability’. Accordingly, it would be contradictory interpretation of the law to regard the ‘determination of tax liability’ in Paragraph 1 as ‘non-appealability’ which is different from the ‘determination of tax liability’ in Paragraph 2. Secondly, it is logically contradictory when the absorption theory is respected with respect to subject and scope of the judgment but the original assessment is regarded to be determination of ‘non-appealability’ with respect to the amount of tax to be cancelled. Lastly, Paragraph 1 states “… shall not affect the relations of rights or duties provided … by tax-related laws …”, which means that it should not affect the rights from a substantive law perspective. However, this case regarded the rights to be the rights from a dispute resolution perspective, which is beyond the interpretation possible within the literal language of the pr...