대표자-출자자에 대한 법인재산 유출의 세법상 취급에 관한 연구 -원천징수의무를 지는 법인의 정당한 범위를 중심으로- = A Study on Tax Treatments over outflow of corporate assets for CEO-shareholders -Focusing on proper range of Victim-Corporation taking withholding obligation-

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This paper mainly focused on withholding obligations of the victim corporation (“victim- corporation”) where it``s assets has been embezzled to CEO-shareholders. This paper is searching for basis of the justification and proper range of the victim-corporation taking withholding obligations. The main part of the problem of the issue derives from the Korea Two Top Courts’ Decisions. According to the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court holdings, the victim-corporation’s withholding obligation is justified when the intention of both victim-corporation and embezzling CEO-shareholder is identified as the same. The Supreme Court held that it must be judged comprehensively because it depends on many facts including details of process of the embezzlement, the degree of control power on the victim-corporation and the corporation’s actions against the embezzling CEO-shareholder such as claim for damages or filing lawsuit against the CEO-shareholder. However, there are problems on these Two Top Courts holdings. First, the main point of the holdings can not give clear behavioral standards to the corporations and the CEO-shareholder taxpayers. Second, the holdings infringes victim-corporation’s property rights, by way of ranging the scope of withholding agents(victim corporation) too widely. This paper proposes legislative improvements simultaneously on both problems. First, on the amount leaked to the CEO-shareholder should be treated as constructive dividends for the completely controlling shareholders and embezzlement for others. It is more reasonable for the corporation to bear the burden of the withholding obligation of the embezzling property only when they are completely under control by the embezzling CEO-shareholder. Because, in this case, the corporation is just used as a tool for the CEO-shareholder, thus the corporations can not claim its property rights to the tax authority. And, because, it would better accords with the responsible property maintenance functions of today’s system of withholding obligations.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 윤남근, "회생계획안의 인가 -기업가치의 분배를 중심으로-" 한국법학원 (131) : 5-47, 2012

2 이태로, "조세법강의" 박영사 2014

3 임승순, "조세법" 박영사 2008

4 이철송, "제2차납세의무 제도의 타당성의 반성" 한국세무사회 10 (10): 1992

5 신호영, "임직원 횡령시 상여처분 가부에 대한 판례의 문제점 고찰" 한국세법학회 18 (18): 277-326, 2012

6 최원, "원천징수의무자에 의한 세액 납부가 과세관청의 원천납세의무자에 대한 부과권을 소멸시키는지 여부 -대법원 2007.9.7 선고, 2005두5666 판결에 대한 평석-" 한국조세연구포럼 9 (9): 177-208, 2009

7 강석규, "원천징수의무와 원천납세의무와의 관계"

8 이시윤, "신민사소송법" 박영사 2013

9 신호영, "소득세제상 횡령 취급에 대한 비교법적 연구" 안암법학회 (44) : 547-583, 2014

10 오윤, "세법총론" 리걸플러스 2015

11 김대휘, "민법주해(Ⅺ)-채권(4)" 박영사 1992

12 이상경, "명확성의 원칙과 포괄위임입법금지원칙" 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 22 (22): 447-476, 2015

13 최성근, "도산법상 회생절차에서의 조세채권 관련 제도" 한국세법학회 15 (15): 34-64, 2009

14 品川芳宣, "重要租税判決の実務研究" 日本大藏財務協会 2005

15 橋本淸治, "帰属不分明の支岀と課税問題" 서울시립대학교 1 (1): 2008

16 Charles I. Kingson, "The Deep Structure of Taxation: Dividend Distributions" 85 : 861-, 1976

17 김일수, "1인회사의 주주겸 대표이사의 업무상 배임 – 대판 83. 12. 13, 83도2330-" 고려대 법학연구원 4 : 1987