공익법인제도의 개선에 관한 연구

길용원(Kil, Yong-Won) 서강대학교 법학연구소 2016 서강법률논총 Vol.5 No.1

To support public service, the nation established various regulations and gives special provisions on taxation to corporate who donates to public corporate. Current tax laws, corporation tax is not imposed for the profit gained by non-profit corporations in the course of doing their public interest purpose businesses. property is donated for the purpose of pursuing non-profit business, inheritance tax or donation tax is not imposed. In this way, various tax policies are conducted. However, there are side effects from tax privilege. The improvement of public service corporation system is needed to reduce these side effects. The precondition for activation of public interest corporation system is that the nonprofit organization should be operated as the public interest corporation transparently. Therefore, the new executive agency that is independent from the competent authorities should be set up. And establishment procedure of public interest corporation should be made simple. Basically, Need to consider in three dimensions for the improvement of public corporation system. This study proposed the problems and improvements of taxation system relating to public interest corporation under the Corporation Tax Law, Income Tax Law and Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Law in comparison with japanese taxation system. In particular, recent changes in Japan"s public interest corporation system gives us a lot of implications will be presented.

일본 제도의 연구를 통한 체납처분 집행정지의 개선방안

길용원(Kil, Yong-Won) 한국조세법학회 2020 조세논총 Vol.5 No.4

근래 세금을 낼 형편이 되지 않는 기업에 대하여 과세(부과)처분의 집행을 정지한 법원의 판결이 나와 주목을 받은 바 있다. 법원이 과세(부과)처분에 대해 집행정지를 인정한 것이 이례적이기 때문이다. 갑 주식회사가 과세관청의 법인세 671억 원 및 농어촌특별세 100억 원의 부과처분이 국세기본법 제18조 제3항에 의한 비과세관행 내지 소급과세금지의 원칙에 위반됨을 이유로 부과처분 취소소송을 제기한 사안으로, 항소심에서 과세관청의 항소를 기각하면서 동시에 “이 법원이 이 사건 처분을 취소하는 내용의 판결을 선고함에도 위 처분이 집행된다면 원고에게 회복하기 어려운 손해가 발생할 우려가 있어 이를 예방할 필요가 있다고 인정되고, 달리 집행정지로 인하여 공공복리에 중대한 영향을 미칠 우려가 있다고 볼 자료가 없다.”라고 판시하면서, 직권으로 판결 확정시까지 과세(부과)처분에 대한 집행을 정지하는 결정을 한 것이다. 사실 행정처분 중 과세처분이나 체납처분 등과 같은 재산적 처분의 경우에는 집행정지의 요건 중 보전의 필요성 즉, ‘회복하기 어려운 손해를 예방하기 위하여 긴급한 필요’가 있음을 입증하기가 쉽지 않으며, 실제로도 재산적 처분에 대한 집행정지가 인정되는 사례가 많지 않다. 이러한 점에 종래 행정소송법상 ‘회복하기 어려운 손해’라는 요건을 ‘중대한 손해’로 변경하고자 하는 행정소송법 개정안이 있었다. 개정안의 취지는 금전상의 손해라 할지라도 그 손해의 정도가 중대한 경우에는 집행정지를 가능하게 하여 특히 과세처분이나 체납처분과 관련된 집행정지를 활성화하고자 한 것이다. 현행법상 손해의 요건인 ‘회복하기 어려운 손해’가 지나치게 엄격하다는 지적이 종래부터 있어 왔고, 이에 지속적으로 완화의 필요성 제기되어 온 점이 반영된 것이기도 하다. 안타깝게도 개정이 현실화되지는 못하였다. 다만 실제 실무상의 운영에 있어서 집행정지의 필요성을 판단할 때 처분의 성질 및 형태에 중점을 두면서도 그 외에 본안에서의 승소가능성, 집행정지로 인한 공익침해의 정도와 그로 인하여 신청인이 면할 손해, 집행정지 후 본안 패소 시 발생할 문제점 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 구체적 사안에 따라 집행정지의 필요성을 판단하고 있고, 종래 공정거래위원회의 과징금부과처분사건의 경우에도 대법원은 과징금납부명령의 처분이 신청인의 자금사정이나 경영전반에 미치는 파급효과는 매우 중대하다고 할 것이므로, 그로 인한 신청인의 손해는 비록 그 성질이나 태양이 재산상의 손해에 속한다고 하더라도 사회관념상 사후의 금전보상으로는 참고 견딜 수 없거나 또는 견디기가 현저히 곤란한 손해라고 할 것이어서 효력정지 내지 집행정지의 적극적 요건인 회복하기 어려운 손해 에 해당한다고 판시한바 있는 점에 비추어 이러한 논의가 여전히 의미가 있을 것이라 생각한다. 우리나라의 경우 과세처분이나 체납처분 등과 같은 재산적 처분에 대한 집행정지를 기본적으로 부정하는 바, 그 연구가 부족한 것이 사실이므로 우리와 유사한 형태의 법제도를 가진 일본에서의 논의를 통하여 시사점을 도출하고자 하는 것이다. 결론적으로 현행법상의 ‘회복하기 어려운 손해’를 완화하여 일본의 개정 행정사건소송법과 같이 ‘중대한 손해’로 개정할 필요가 있으며, 또한 일본의 개정 행정사건소송법 제25조 제3항과 같은 비교형량의 기준을 설정해주는 규정을 명문화할 필요가 있다고 생각된다. 이를 통해 납세자의 예측가능성이 확보될 수 있을 것이다. The stay of execution was established as a temporary remedy against plaintiffs who filed appeal suits under the principle of non-stop execution of administrative measures. However, if stay of execution is easily approved, it will hamper the exercise of legitimate public authority on administrative measures and lead to administrative stagnation. Therefore, in the event of a suspension of the execution of administrative measures, it is extremely important to see how to coordinate the two opposing ideals to ensure the protection of private rights and interests and the smooth management of administrative processes. Article 25 (2) of the Administrative Case Litigation Act stipulates “Where an action for the revocation of the original administrative disposition is filed, if there is an urgent necessity in order to avoid any serious damage that would be caused by the original administrative disposition, the execution of the original administrative disposition or the continuation of any subsequent procedure, the court may, upon petition, by an order, stay the whole or part of the effect of the original administrative disposition, the execution of the original administrative disposition or the continuation of any subsequent procedure (hereinafter referred to as stay of execution ); provided, however, that the court may not stay the effect of an original administrative disposition if the purpose can be achieved by staying the execution of the original administrative disposition or staying the continuation of any subsequent procedure.” The revision to serious damage means a lot to us. This is the requirements for the stay of execution have been mitigated. In the case of Korea, a revision is also requested as serious damage . It also needs to be stipulated that the rule “When judging whether or not any serious damage would be caused as prescribed in the preceding paragraph, the court shall consider the degree of difficulty in recovering from the damage and shall take into consideration the nature and extent of the damage as well as the content and nature of the original administrative disposition”.

과세전적부심사와 관련된 과세처분의 절차적 하자에 관한 연구-대법원 2016. 4. 15. 선고 2015두52326 판결을 중심으로-

길용원 ( Kil Yong-won ),신만중 ( Shin Man-joong ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2017 홍익법학 Vol.18 No.3

과세관청이 법령이 아닌 내부지침에 불과한 국세청 훈령을 근거로 하여 과세예고통지를 하지 않고 법인세를 부과한 경우 그 부과처분의 적법 여부가 문제된다. 즉 국세기본법과 그 시행령 상에는 과세전적부심사청구의 배제사유로 규정되어 있지 않은 사항을 국세청 훈령인 과세전적부심사사무처리규정에서 이를 확대하여 규정함으로써 과세관청이 이를 근거로 하여 과세예고통지를 하지 아니한 채 과세처분을 한 것이 적법한 가의 문제이다. 이와 관련하여 대법원 2016. 4. 15. 선고 2015두52326 판결은 “특별한 사정이 없는 한, 과세관청이 과세처분에 앞서 필수적으로 행하여야 할 과세예고 통지를 하지 아니함으로써 납세자에게 과세전적부심사의 기회를 부여하지 아니한 채 과세처분을 하였다면, 이는 납세자의 절차적 권리를 침해한 것으로서 과세처분의 효력을 부정하는 방법으로 통제할 수밖에 없는 중대한 절차적 하자가 존재하는 경우에 해당하므로, 과세처분은 위법하다.”고 판시하였다. 이는 최근에 대법원이 국세기본법 제7장의2에 열거된 납세자의 절차적 권리 특히 과세관청이 세무조사 과정상의 절차적 적법성에 대한 판단을 엄격하게 하는 취지의 판결과 일맥상통하는 것이라 평가할 수 있다. 헌법상 원칙인 헌법 제12조 제1항의 적법절차의 원칙은 형사소송절차 뿐만 아니라 국세부과절차에도 당연히 미친다는 점을 재차 명확하게 확인하였다는 점에 의의가 있으며, 또한 과세관청이 조세를 부과함에 있어서는 국세청 내부의 지침이나 훈령에 근거하지 말고 조세법률주의에 근거하여 납세자의 절차적 권리가 부당하게 제한되지 않도록 반드시 세법상의 절차를 준수할 것을 명확하게 상기시켜주었다는 측면에서도 의미가 있는 판결이다. 본 논고는 과세전적부심사제도의 활성화를 긍정하는 입장에서 납세자의 절자적 권리보장을 위해 대상 판결의 태도를 논리적으로 고찰하고자 한다. 보다 적극적인 활용을 위해 과세전적부심사 대상의 확대를 주장하는 바이며, 과세전적부심사제도의 지속적인 연구가 계속될 것을 요청하는 바이다. Recently, tax complaints are frequently occurring against high taxation. To prepare for this, the taxpayer usually uses the post-processing process. The process of tax appeals is an important measure for the taxpayer. This process of the nation`s tax appeals has come to a focus on the post-processing process. But not anymore. There is a need to review the pre-processing process once again. Pre-processing procedures also have many advantages as well as post-process procedures. So it is very important to them. We need to examine the Pre-Deliberation review system in particular. About this matter, it is necessary to pay attention to recent Supreme Court. This case is the forfeit of the taxpayer`s procedural rights based on instructions, not legislations. The Supreme Court recently highlighted the process of the taxpayer`s legal rights. Taxation offices should be based on the law in which taxation is imposed. This is the realization of principle of no taxation without law. Tax advance notice is essential, unless specifically instructed to do so. If you deprive it, it will cause serious defects. That is, it violates the taxpayer`s procedural rights. For the continuous use of the Pre-Deliberation review system, continued research is required. It is also intended to implement due process of law in korean constitution

조세불복제도의 개선에 관한 연구

길용원(Kil Yong-Won) 서강대학교 법학연구소 2014 서강법률논총 Vol.3 No.2

Disposition of tax imposition could violate Taxpayer’s property rights. Therefore, nations regulate The Basic Law for National Taxes to minimize property rights violations. The tax appeal system includes remedy for violation of private rights and interests. This system offers opportunities for the taxation authority to self-annul the assessment on the taxation. The current system of tax appeal exists pre-taxation review program and the system of formal objection, the system of national tax appeal, the system of appeal to tax tribunal. However, Due to the multi-level structure of taxation authority’s remedy for violation of private rights and interests, concerns of inefficiencies in administrating. Therefore, to remedy the rights of taxpayers effectively, Reasonable Improvement of the legal structure is requested. First, The pre-taxation review program should be activated. Need to expand the target of claims. In addition, The extension of the billing period is requested. The legalization of effect of decision is requested. Because this program saves the litigation expenses and can be shortened the action time. Second, The system of formal objection should be abolished. There"s a huge overlap between The pre-taxation review program and The system of formal objection. Third, The system of appeal to tax tribunal and the system of national tax appeal should be integrated. Fourth, In order to ensure the professionalism of the tax case, Tax Court is required for the installation.

부당행위계산부인의 특수관계인 범위에 관한 고찰

길용원(Kil Yong Won) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2014 法學論文集 Vol.38 No.2

Taxation is limited to the results of the people's property. Thus, tax evasion is a problem that happens in any times. This practice needs to be banned. This problem is especially the rejection of unfair act and calculation of Corporation Tax Law. The Denial of the improper transaction and calculation between the persons who have special relationships in Corporation Tax Law is the most important method to prohibit tax evasion. But Legitimate and effective business practices, so that the ex-post regulatory requirements, the rule of the rejection of unfair act and calculation need to be strictly construed. Article 87 of enforcement ordinance of Corporate Tax Law concerning the scope of related parties, there has been conflict of opinion. In this regard there are conflicts of one side relationship theory and two sides relationship theory. The Supreme Court had in a point of view of two sides relationship theory in the past. But the Supreme Court recently changed its opinion to one side relationship theory. The main reason is the principle of strict interpretation and prohibition of analogical interpretation. Considering the purpose of tax avoidance prohibition, two sides relationship theory is thought to be reasonable. Recently revised enforcement ordinance of Corporate Tax Law and The Basic Law for National Taxes were based on the two sides relationship theory. I think the legislation is valid.

조세범처벌법상 조세포탈의 부정행위에 관한 연구

길용원(Kil Yong Won) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2017 法學論文集 Vol.41 No.2

Tax evader is a highly charged crime that infringes on the tax burden imposed on others by acting as an actor who violates the taxation obligation of the Constitution. The Act on the Punishment of Tax Service stipulates punishment on acts of taxation evasion. Especially to the contents of the Fraud and Other Unlawful Activities. This case is problematic if the act of taxation is subjected to tax evasion, prevents only of the collection act. The first court recognized the act of portals, but the second court denied it. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court was limited. In order to judge whether or not it is tax evasion, it is necessary to comprehensively review the concepts, protection interests, specification of an act of committing a crime, and consummated time. Collectively, it should be judged whether or not it is Unlawful Activities. Recently, the Supreme Court has widely judged the extent of Unlawful Activities. It is concentrating on aggressive concealment intention. In addition, the judgment of Unlawful Activities should be considered in terms of practical aspects rather than in formal aspects. If we judge uniformly, there is a possibility of causing the failure of national finances. A substantive judgment is required to prevent tax evasion on new forms of trade. The decision suggests a broader interpretation of the extent to which Fraud and Other Unlawful Activities of tax payment by self-assessment are more widespread than ever before.

중가산세제도의 부정행위에 관한 고찰

길용원 ( Yong Won Kil ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2014 法學硏究 Vol.24 No.2

The Basic Law for National Taxes which was revised as the Law No. 11124 on December 31th, 2011, a Requirement of Heavy Additional Tax was newly changed. “Unjustified Way” changed the name of the “Illegal Activity”. Heavy Additional Tax is applied the principle of no taxation without law. Because It is one type of taxation. Heavy Additional Tax needs to be determined By the clearness of the tax law. Due to the uncertainty of the concept of “concealment and disguise”, Previously there was a discussion about the meaning of it. For example, in order to impose Heavy Additional Tax on taxpayers whether ‘concealment and disguise’ of awareness. Even if the taxpayer``s passive behavior can be included in the act of “concealment and disguise” is whether. As a result, Heavy Additional Tax for abuse of the tax authority was concerned. The revised Basic Law for National Taxes on “Illegal Activity” is also unclear. Thus, the interpretation of its meaning is an important issue. Limited to the subject of “Illegal Activity”, whether the taxpayer or his family or representatives whether the problem is to be included. “Fraud and Other Illegal Activities” on the Law of Punishment on Tax Criminal and “Illegal Activity” on the Basic Law for National Taxes are discussing whether the same meaning when considering the effect of the amendment, which is thought to be synonymous. Due to “Illegal Activity” and “Fraud and Other Illegal Activities” on the same concept to grasp, The taxpayer is likely to be double punishment. Legislative improvements are needed.