확정 전 보전압류에 관한 소고

In this article, author examined Korea's preliminary seizure in tax law thoroughly. Based on the examination, author suggested the improvement as follows:First, the preliminary seizure can be imposed unilaterally by tax authorities as a administrative measure even when there is a dispute on the existence of secured tax claims between the tax authorities and the tax payers. Therefore, although it has a temporary character like a civil preservative action, it can be imposed without the judicial control. In this respect it can infringe the tax payer’s property. In historical respect the authority to impose the preliminary seizure has not been exclusively belonged to tax authorities. The relocation of the issue authority of preliminary seizure to judicial authorities may be considered as a long-range policy change. Second, the appeal to the preliminary seizure itself or to the refusal to the application of release of the preliminary seizure has to go through the compulsory preliminary administrative procedure. Therefore, once the tax authorities impose the preliminary seizure, the tax payer can not exclude the legal effect of the preliminary seizure easily. This kind of irrationality is maximized when there is a dispute between the tax authorities and the tax payers. The author suggests that the appeal procedure shall be exempted from the compulsory preliminary administrative procedure. Third, when preliminary seizure is released or canceled, the damaged caused by it shall be compensated irrespective of the negligence of the officials. In this regard, the legislative improvement is needed.