조세소송에 있어서 주장책임과증명책임에 관한 고찰

전현철 원광대학교 법학연구소 2019 圓光法學 Vol.35 No.3

Tax liabilities are obligatory for the payment of money, and taxpayers are required to cooperate actively in establishing tax liabilities. The taxation disposition has the character of procedurally confirming the tax liabilities established by the provisions of the Act. Due to these characteristics, the tax lawsuit is in the form of an administrative lawsuit, but it has the substance of a civil lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of debt. There is no room for adversarial system in general administrative lawsuits, but in tax lawsuits, it should be understood that, in principle, adversarial system is applied and principle of conducting investigation ex officio is added to it. Therefore, in the tax lawsuit, only the facts claimed by the parties can be used as the basis of the judgment, and the fact that there is no dispute between the parties should be used as the basis of the judgment and the investigation of the evidence of the authority of the court is limited. However, if necessary, the court may investigate the evidence by its own authority, and based on the data presented in the trial, facts not claimed by the parties may be used as the basis of the judgment. In tax lawsuits, it is appropriate to distribute the burden of proof in accordance with the legal requirement classification in accordance with the principle of equality. Therefore, the tax authorities shall bear the burden of proof in relation to the legality of the taxation disposition, and the taxpayer shall bear the burden of proof in relation to the reasons for the disability and extinction of the taxation disposition. However, in tax lawsuits, it is often difficult for tax authorities to submit taxation data without evidence of taxpayer cooperation because most of the taxation data is within the taxpayer's domicile. Nonetheless, demanding rigorous burden of proof by the tax authorities is likely to result in irrational outcomes contrary to the principle of fairness. Therefore, in cases where it is difficult to access the taxation data of the tax authorities, it is necessary to bear the burden of proof to the taxpayer who can easily submit the taxation data.

消滅時效 完成의 效果

강구욱 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2015 외법논집 Vol.39 No.3

In Korean Civil Law, With the effect of extinctive prescription of rights, Article 162 (1)& (2), Article 163(1) and Article 164(1) prescribe “the extinctive prescription shall become complete.” With the retroactive effect of extinctive prescription, Article 167 prescribes “the effect of extinctive prescription shall be retroactive to the day on which it began to run.” With regard to the suspension of extinctive prescription, Article 179 and Article 180 (1)&(2) prescribe “prescription shall not become complete.” In Article 181 and Article 182, both of them also prescribe “extinctive prescription shall not become complete.” But, there is no direct regulation about the effect of completion of extinctive prescription in Civil Law which roughly outlines extinctive prescription. Accordingly, the debate over how to understand the effect of completion of extinctive prescription, the 'Extinguishment of right theory' and the 'Rights of invocation generation theory' has been continued for decades. The key point of the debate lies in whether the extinguishment of a right due to completion of extinctive prescription shall vary with 'invocation' of parties which is specified in Article 145 of Japanese Civil Law. With respect to this debate, we geneally understand that the 'Extinguishment of right theory' is dominant wisdom and the Supreme Court is also prone to uphold it. However, this study reveals that the 'Rights of invocation generation theory' has been a general tendency of numerous theories and precedents. Based on this situation, the study, therefore, suggests we should take the 'Extinguishment of right theory' as interpretation of Korean Civil Law by examining regulations of Foreign law, especially Japanese Civil Law, and its related theories and precedents, by tracing legislator's intent through examining the process of legislation of Korean Civil law and by revealing a problem of 'Rights of invcation generation theory' through reviewing and criticizing its main logical basis. 民法 제162조 제1항, 제2항, 제163조 제1항, 제164조 제1항은 權利의 消滅時效의 效力에 관해 “消滅時效가 完成한다.”고 規定하고, 제167조는 消滅時效의 遡及效에 관해 “消滅時效는 그 起算日에 遡及하여 效力이 생긴다.”고 規定하며, 消滅時效의 停止에 관해, 民法 제179조, 제180조 제1항, 제2항은 “時效가 完成되지 아니한다.”고 規定하고, 제181조는 “消滅時效가 完成하지 아니한다.”고 規定하며, 제182조는 “時效가 完成하지 아니한다.”고 規定하고 있을 뿐 消滅時效에 관한 大綱을 정하고 있는 民法 總則編에는 消滅時效 完成의 效果에 관한 直接的 規定이 없다. 이에 消滅時效 完成의 效果를 어떻게 파악할 것인가 하는 점에 관해 權利消滅說과 援用權發生說의 論爭이 數十年間 持續되고 있는데, 그러한 論爭의 要諦는 消滅時效 完成으로 因한 權利의 消滅에 日本 民法 제145조에 規定되어 있는 바와 같이 當事者의 ‘援用’이 必要한지 與否에 있다. 이 論爭에 관해서는 權利消滅說이 通說 내지 多數說이고, 大法院 判例 역시 基本的으로 權利消滅說의 立場이라고 보는 것이 보통이다. 그렇지만 筆者는, 이 硏究를 통해, 援用權發生說이 學說⋅判例의 大勢를 이루고 있음을 糾明하고, 外國 특히 日本 民法의 規定과 그 規定에 관한 學說⋅判例를 檢討하고, 우리 民法의 立法 過程을 檢討함으로써 立法者의 意思를 追跡한 다음, 援用權發生說이 내세우는 主要 根據를 檢討⋅批判함으로써 援用權發生說의 問題點을 究明하여 우리 民法의 解釋論으로는 權利消滅說을 취해야 한다는 拙見을 제시하였다.

단계거래원칙이 실질과세원칙에서 차지하는 지위와 부당한 단계거래의 판단기준

최성근(Seong Keun Choi) 한국세법학회 2008 조세법연구 Vol.14 No.2

2007년 12월 국세기본법 개정에서 제14조 제3항으로 조세목적상 부당한 단계거래로 인정되는 경우에는 그 경제적 실질내용에 따라 하나의 거래로 과세한다는 규정이 신설되었다. 이 규정의 도입으로 실무상 조세회피행위에 대한 실질과세원칙의 적용범위가 넓어질 것임은 물론이고, 기존의 조세회피행위 부인에 관한 개별규정의 해석ㆍ적용에 있어서도 법률요건의 충족 여부에 대한 판단이 용이해질 것이지만, 실제로 이 규정을 해석ㆍ적용함에 있어서는 문제가 그리 간단할 것 같지 않다. 먼저 짚어 보아야 할 대목은 규제의 방식에 있어서, 기존의 조세회피행위 부인규정들은 특정한 세목과 관련된 특정한 거래형태를 대상으로 하고 있는 데 반해, 이 규정은 세목 전반에 걸쳐 ‘단계거래’라고 하는 거래유형을 대상으로 하고 있다는 점이다. 즉, 이러한 규제방식이 과세요건 명확화 내지는 ‘조세회피행위를 부인하려면 법률에 개별적이고 구체적인 부인규정이 있어야 한다’는 종래의 법원의 입장과 조화될 수 있는가 하는 점이다. 다음으로 규제의 내용에 있어서, 이 규정은 ‘단계거래가 조세법의 혜택을 부당하게 받기 위한 것으로 인정되는 경우’라고 하는 법률요건과 ‘그 경제적 실질내용에 따라 단일한 거래로 과세한다’라는 법률효과로 구성되어 있는데, 여기에서 부당한 단계거래라든가 경제적 실질내용과 같은 표현들은 종래의 조세법규정에서는 볼 수 없었던 것들로서, 어떤 경우가 부당한 단계거래에 해당하는지 또 경제적 실질내용이란 어떤 의미를 담고 있는 것인지에 대해서는 상당한 논의가 전개될 것으로 예상된다. 이 논문에서는 먼저 국세기본법 제14조 제3항이 취하고 있는 규제방식의 의의를 규명하고, 다음으로 이 규정의 요건인 부당한 단계거래의 판단기준을 검토하며, 끝으로 이 규정의 효과와 관련하여 경제적 실질내용의 의미에 대하여 고찰한다. 부당한 단계거래의 판단기준에 대해서는 국내에 참고할 만한 학문적인 논의나 판례의 축적이 많지 아니하므로, 미국법상 실질과세이론의 한 갈래인 단계거래원칙에 관한 판례법이론을 주된 검토자료로 활용한다. Framework Act on National Taxes newly introduced the step transaction principle in Section 3 of Article 14 in December 2007. It prescribes that in case where it is admitted that any benefits of tax acts are unjustly given by the indirect method through a third party or the method of going through two or more acts or transactions, the provisions of tax acts shall be applied by deeming that the interested party has directly transacted or a continued single action or transaction in accordance with the relevant economic substances. This provision is very similar to Section 4 of Article 2 of Inheritance Tax and Gifts tax Act, and is almost same with Section 3 of Article 2-2 of Act for the Coordination of International Tax Affairs. The former is related to the so-called entirely comprehensive taxation, and the latter is for the tax authorities to tax according to the economic substance of the international transactions, especially to regulate treaty shopping. There are different opinions on if Section 3 of Article 14 of Framework Act on National Taxes is a confirmative provision or a creative provision, in relation to Section 1 and 2 of Article 14 of the Act that declare the substance-over-form doctrine. Section 1 of Article 14 of the Act provides that if any ownership of incomes, profits, properties, actions or transactions which are subject to taxation, is just nominal, and there is another person to whom such incomes etc. belongs, the latter person shall be liable for tax payment and tax acts shall apply accordingly. And Section 2 of Article 14 of the Act provides that provisions on the computation of the tax base in tax acts shall be applied according to the substance regardless of the title or form of incomes, profits, properties, actions or transactions. The main requirement of this provision is "unjust step transaction", but it is expected that the judgement of that will be not easy in actual application. It is because there have been few debates or cases on the judgement tests of it in Korea. For that reason, the judgement tests of "unjust step transaction" in U. S. common law are reviewed to attain some suggestions in the interpretation and application of this provision. The tests to decide if the step transaction principle is applied or not, are binding commitment test, end result test and mutual interdependence test. However the step transaction principle is inapplicable whenever the taxpayer can show the existence of economic substance or business purpose for each step.

100kW급 수직축 조류발전시스템의 출력 성능에 대한 연구

허만웅(Man-Woong Heo),신동윤(Dong-Youn Shin),서한경(Han-Kyeong Seo),정무혜(Mu-Hea Jung),박진순(Jin-Soon Park) 한국유체기계학회 2023 한국유체기계학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2023 No.7

100kW급 듀얼 하이브리드 수직축 조류발전시스템의 출력 성능에 대한 연구

박진순(Jin-Soon Park),허만웅(Man-Woong Heo),박준석(Jun-Seok Park),신동윤(Dong-Youn Shin),서한경(Han-Kyeong Seo) 한국유체기계학회 2023 한국유체기계학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2023 No.12