조세채권의 소멸시효 중단사유에 관한 연구: 재판상 청구를 중심으로 = A Study on the Causes Interrupting Extinctive Prescription of Tax Claims: Focused on the Judicial Claim

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The term ‘extinctive prescription system’ means a system that extinguishes a person’s right when the holder’s right isn‘t exercised for a certain period of time. This system is designed to maintain a social order that has lasted for a certain period of time and to exclude persons who sleep on their rights without exercising their rights from the preservation of evidence that becomes difficult over time. Nevertheless, if there is a certain act in the virtual state of non-exercise of rights, the effect of the existing prescription period will be lost, which is called the interrupting of the extinctive prescription.
Recently, an important ruling has been issued regarding the causes interrupting extinctive prescription. It is particularly relevant to the judicial claim. For example, in the case where it became a question of whether the government could file a lawsuit against taxpayers due to the interrupting of the extinctive prescription, the supreme court ruled that it was possible if there were special circumstances. Regarding the special circumstances, the Supreme Court's ruling 2017 DU 41771 states that the tax payment is not sufficient or that the seizure cannot be initiated due to unknown address.
Tax claims are no different from ordinary civil claims, so the reason for the interrupting of the extinctive prescription stipulated by the Civil Code can be applied to tax claims as long as they do not violate the nature of the claim. In a situation where the amount of arrears after the statute of extinctive prescription is increasing rapidly, it is necessary to secure the national finances and prevent malicious taxpayers who abuse the statute of limitations. The discussion between Japan and Germany is worth considering in comparison. And the discussion in Japan is especially similar to that in Korea.
Some criticize that it is unclear what the special circumstances mean. The inefficiency of taxation administration is also pointed out. This is because lawsuits may have to be filed regardless of the amount of arrears. It will have to be supplemented by legislation or accumulated judicial precedents.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김석환, "조세채권 시효중단 사유로서 재판상 청구" 법학연구소 20 (20): 299-328, 2019

2 김두형, "조세징수권의 소멸시효 중단 사유에 관한 고찰" 경희법학연구소 8 (8): 2015

3 유철형, "조세징수권 소멸시효 중단위한 '조세채권존재확인의 소' 제기 가능한가?, 유철형의 판세 5"

4 이범주, "조세시효의 중단에 관한 약간의 문제―민법의 준용과 관련하여―" 특별소송실무연구회 2 : 1985

5 강석규, "조세법쟁론" 삼일인포마인 2022

6 차규현, "조세법상 민법 소멸시효의 준용 범위" 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 9 (9): 47-95, 2016

7 이태로, "조세법강의" 박영사 2020

8 임승순, "조세법" 박영사 2022

9 조용호, "재판자료집 61집" 법원도서관 1993

10 길용원, "일본의 과세에 관한 시효제도의 이론적 고찰 - 징수권의 시효중단을 중심으로 -" 법조협회 68 (68): 565-600, 2019

11 임기환, "시효중단을 위한 재소(再訴)의 허용 여부 및 재소 허용 시 이행소송 외에 이른바 ‘새로운 방식의 확인소송’의 인정 여부" 사법발전재단 1 (1): 587-622, 2019

12 장완규, "소멸시효 중단사유로서 ‘재판상 청구’에 관한 검토" 한국집합건물법학회 41 : 69-103, 2022

13 구욱서, "사법과 세법" 유로 2022

14 유성욱, "대법원판례해설 126호" 법원도서관 2021

15 류기웅, "대법원판례해설 123호" 법원도서관 2020

16 송쌍종, "국세징수법론" 조세문화사 2014

17 이주헌, "국세징수권의 소멸시효 중단사유로서 재판상 청구의 인정 여부―대법원 2020. 3. 2. 선고 2017두41771 판결을 중심으로―" 한국세법학회 27 (27): 249-287, 2021

18 金子宏, "租税法" 弘文堂 2019

19 木村琢磨, "租税判例百選" 有斐閣 2021

20 下村芳夫, "徴収権の消滅時効" 税務大学校 (7) : 1973

21 박진호, "2020년 국세기본법 및 소득세법 판례회고" 한국세법학회 27 (27): 7-46, 2021