매매대금 사후 감액을 사유로 한 취득세 경정청구에 관한 판결의 비판적 검토－대법원 2018.9.13. 선고 2015두57345 판결을 중심으로－ = In Acquisition Taxes, the Critical Review on the Ruling about the Request for Correction due to the ex－post Facto Reduction of the Sales Prices－Focusing on the Supreme Court September 13, 2018. 2015 Du 57345 ruling－

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In the Frame Act on Local Taxes that became effective from 2011 as a sub－law of the 2010 Local Tax Act, the system about the request for correction was implemented to expand relief of rights for taxpayers, and the system’s contents are de fact identical to the regulations on the system about claims for rectification according to the Framework Act on National Taxes. Despite this, unlike national taxes, the Supreme Court ruling on September 30, 2018 for case 2015 Du 57345 (hereinafter called Ruling) does not recognize the request for correction of acquisition taxes according to the ex－post reduction of sales prices following the acquisition of real estate.
The reason why such conclusion was reached was because despite the fact that the Framework Act on Local Taxes and the Framework Act on National Taxes have practically the same regulations on the request for correction, local taxes do not recognize reasons for the request for correction that is widely recognized in cases regarding national taxes. The Supreme Court cited previous rulings prior to the implementation on the regulations of the request for correction and claimed that in the Framework Act on Local Taxes, because of the character of the acquisition tax corresponding to transfer taxes or service taxes, ex－post facto changes of taxing facts cannot affect tax (acquisition tax) claims that were already established. However, the Framework Act on Local Taxes practically prescribes the same regulations related to the request for correction as that regulations in the Framework Act on National Taxes, and therefore, it would be difficult to accept that the regulations on the claim for rectification in the local taxes, should be applied differently from the national taxes.
In addition, the ruling states that acquisition taxes are transfer taxes and service taxes, and therefore, changes in the conditions of tax facts after acquisition do not affect the exercising of tax claims that were initially established. However, case rulings for national taxes acknowledge grounds for the request for correction in a broad range, and in result, there is no relationship between the categorization and characteristics of individual tax items and the grounds for the request for correction. In the case of national taxes, if there is no special regulation on individual tax laws regardless of the categorization and characteristic of individual tax items, the ex－post facto reduction of the sales prices of each transaction that is the source for comprising the tax base, are recognized in principle as grounds for the rectification due to ex－post factors. The regulations for the request for correction in provincial taxes are the same as that regulations of national taxes, and because there are no specific regulation for local taxes, it is viewed that there is no relationship between the characteristics of acquisition taxes as transfer taxes and service taxes, and grounds for the request for correction. And it is thus feasible to recognize the ex－post facto reduction of sales prices as grounds for the tax rectification. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruling on September 7, 2017 case number 2017 Du 41740 and Supreme Court ruling on June 15, 2018 case number 2015 Du 36003 show that the grounds for the normal request for correction and grounds for the rectification due to ex－post factors are not mutually exclusive, and therefore, when summarizing the above, the claims for rectification of Ruling, based on the grounds for ex－post facto reduction of sales prices should be cited to be feasible.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 양인병, "지방재정제도 연구：지방세법 수정신고 제도 개선 검토" 한국지방재정공제회 14 : 176-189, 2009

2 행정안전부, "지방세법 해석매뉴얼"

3 김홍철, "지방세 불복제도의 문제점과 개선방향：경정청구제도를 중심으로" 한국지방세연구원 40 : 16-35, 2018

4 이준봉, "조세법총론｣" 삼일인포마인 2017

5 이태로, "조세법강의" 박영사 2016

6 "삼일아이닷컴"

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

8 "로앤비 전자법률도서관"

9 엄선근, "권리확정주의와 후발적 사유에 의한 경정청구의 관계에 관한 연구－대법원 판례에 대한 검토와 대안을 중심으로－" 가천대학교 대학원 2017

10 유철형, "계약해제와 취득세 경정청구 해설" 영화조세통람 (370) : 2019

11 박노수, "계약해제시 양도소득세, 증여세, 취득세의 통일적 적용방법에 관한 연구" 한국세법학회 20 (20): 243-292, 2014

12 김태호, "계약해제 관련 지방세 법제의 개선방안에 관한 연구" 한국세법학회 19 (19): 467-512, 2013

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

14 이동식, "거래대금의 사후감면과 법인세 과세 - 대법원 2013. 12. 26. 선고, 2011두1245 판결을 중심으로 -" 법조협회 64 (64): 276-314, 2015

15 金子 宏, "租稅法" 弘文當 2017

16 吉田克己, "現代租稅論の展開" 八千代出版 2005

17 유철형, "[천자평석]일반적 경정청구기간인 5년 내에 후발적 경정청구사유가 발생하였는데, 납세의무자가 후발적 경정청구기간인 3개월이 경과한 후에 후발적 경정청구가 아닌일반적 경정청구를 할 수 있는"

18 유철형, "[천자평석] 취득세 신고․납부 후 매매대금 감액 시 경정청구가 가능한지"

19 강성모, "2014년도 국세기본법 및 부가가치세법 판례회고" 한국세법학회 21 (21): 353-420, 2015