후발적 경정청구 사유로서 소송에 대한 판결의 의미와 범위 - 일본에서의 해석론과 비교를 중심으로 -

The provisions of Article 45-2 of Framework Act on National Taxes were imitated from regulations of Japan. So this legislation is very similar in both countries. So I think that the trends of the Japanese doctrine and the case law help to interpret the law and these have implications for the interpretation of the law in Korea. The provisions of Article 45-2 Clause 2 of Act on National Taxes says where any of the following grounds is established, a person who has filed a return on a tax base within the statutory due date of return, or who has the tax base and the amount of national taxes determined, may request the determination or correction within two months from the date on which he/she becomes aware of occurrence of such ground, regardless of the period under paragraph (1) One of the grounds is where the transactions or act, etc. which forms the basis of calculation of the tax base and the amount of taxes in the initial return, determination or correction, is confirmed as a different one by a final judgment (including any reconciliation or other act having the same effect as the judgment) in the lawsuit against it; The starting point of this paper is that the predictability of the scope of the ruling and applicability are not clear as a later occurring reason specified is not sufficient. Thus, various theories and case law are widely discussed surrounding the meaning of ‘judgment on the lawsuit’ as a ground for claiming reassessment. In order to develop reasonable theory regarding the claims in later occurring reason, Korea’s claims system should be compared with legislation case and interpretation theory in Japan. Various problems found from the review were as follows: If the ruling is confirmed within the deadline for reassessment as a later occurring reason, there are confrontational views about the issues regarding which period regarding the reassessment period is first applied. For this case, if one has the reason for the reassessment occurred and five years since the deadline for statutory claims has not yet been surpassed, it should be interpreted that normal reassessment can be claimed. Korea's doctrine and case law applies only to civil judgment in the national Basic Law Clause 2 Article 45 paragraph 2 No. 1 ruling that excludes the application to the criminal judgements and administrative judgements, which is a narrow interpretation of the scope of judgements. However, restricting the acceptable reason to the case where taxpayer and the tax authorities are not in dispute and they have completely identical leal issues, is a violation of intent in reassessment within the taxpayers’ tax relief system. As is the case in Japan, there is a need to consider making a legislation that enable taxpayers to claim reassessment, in the case where the interpretation of law is favorable to the taxpayers.