취득세의 법적 성질론에 관한 소고－부동산에 대한 취득세를 중심으로－ = A Study on the Theory of Legal Nature in Acquisition Tax

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Regarding the nature of Acquisition Tax, the two theories are in confrontation with each other. One position is that Acquisition Tax is a kind of transfer tax, and the other position is that it is a kind of property tax. The former is called formal theory and the latter is called substantive theory in relation to the tax liability of Acquisition Tax. The Supreme Court has always supported the transfer tax or formal theory.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court drew conclusions that conformed to the substance theory, contrary to the formal theory on many specific issues. First, if a legal act of giving or trading is canceled due to its legal impediment, the formal theory acknowledges the establishment of a tax liability to pay Acquisition Tax, but the Supreme Court denied it. Second, in the case of a legal cancellation, termination of contract or cancellation of an agreement regarding a gift or sale contract, the formal theory acknowledges the establishment of a tax liability to pay Acquisition Tax to the original donor or seller who recovers to the original state, but the Supreme Court denied it. Third, as to whether the application of the system of claim of reassessment under the Framework Act on Local Taxes, which went into effect on January 1, 2011, is applicable to acquisition taxes, the Supreme Court has ruled inconsistent judgments. The Supreme Court made a ruling that conformed to substantive theory sometime and then later to formal theory. Fourth, the Supreme Court has ruled the acknowledgement of the claim of reassessment for Securities Transaction Tax, which is treated as the same transfer tax with Acquistion Tax, on issues such as post reduction of sale price, in line with the position of the substantive theory, but in the case of the acquisition tax, it denied the claim of reassessment in accordance with the position of the formal theory.
The theoretical disorder caused by the Supreme Court’s ruling is generally attributed to the fact that the nature of Acquisition Tax is regarded as transfer tax, but the compromise was made in consideration of the benefits of use, profit, and disposal that can be acquired from goods in solving specific cases. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will change its stance in support of the transfer tax or formal theory regarding the nature of Acquisition Tax, which has been maintained from a long time ago, to the extent of changing the precedent, or the new legislation of exemption from taxation and a new tax－free rule. While maintaining legal coherence with respect to the theory of the nature of Acquisition Tax, the changes to positions that conform to the principle of tax equality or to the legal rights of taxpayers will have to be made by active legislation based on substantive theory.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 정지선, "취득세의 합리적 개선방안에 관한 연구 : 입법론을 중심으로" 서울시립대학교 세무대학원 2006

2 최원, "취득세에 있어서의 취득개념에 관한 연구" 경희대학교 국제법무대학원 2000

3 김찬돈, "취득세에 있어서 취득과 취득시기" 35 : 2002

4 김주식, "취득세에 있어서 취득과 관련한 몇가지 문제"

5 문형배, "취득세 납세의무자가 한 신고행위의 하자가 중대하지만 명백하지 않은 때 당연무효 여부" 부산판례연구회 21 : 2010

6 김태호, "지방세법상 취득세의 취득개념과 과세물건에 관한 연구" 서울시립대학교 세무대학원 2007

7 임수연, "조건성취로 인한 대금감액에 있어 취득세 감액경정청구 가능 여부" (118) : 2019

8 박노수, "세법상 계약해제를 둘러싼 과세통일성에 관한 연구 : 양도소득세, 증여세, 취득세를 중심으로" 서울시립대학교 세무전문대학원 2014

9 정기상, "부동산 매매대금의 감액에 따른 취득세경정청구의 가부 ―대상판결：대법원 2018.9.13. 선고 2015두57345 판결―" 한국세무사회 부설 한국조세연구소 8 (8): 347-379, 2019

10 지원림, "민법강의" 홍문사 2017

11 김태호, "명의신탁 관련 취득세제 개선방안" 한국지방세연구원 2020

12 윤서준, "매매대금 사후 감액을 사유로 한 취득세 경정청구에 관한 판결의 비판적 검토－대법원 2018.9.13. 선고 2015두57345 판결을 중심으로－" 한국세무학회 36 (36): 113-140, 2019

13 전동흔, "계약의 효력과 취득세 납세의무 해설(Ⅰ)" 2001

14 안연환, "계약의 해제와 취득세 과세문제 연구" 한국세무사회 부설 한국조세연구소 1 (1): 147-179, 2012

15 윤현석, "계약의 해제와 조세채권" 한국세법학회 10 (10): 256-282, 2004

16 김한기, "계약의 해제와 조세(취득세)채권과의 관계" 2001

17 金子宏, "租稅法" 弘文堂 2019

18 유철형, "2018년도 지방세 판례회고" 한국조세연구포럼 19 (19): 7-54, 2019