국세기본법상 심판청구제도 개선방안에 관한 연구

The request for adjudgment system serves as a crucial mechanism for protecting taxpayers' rights and ensuring the legality of tax administration. Among the various tax dispute resolution procedures, tax appeals to the Tax Tribunal are a key remedy for taxpayers challenging tax authority decisions. However, the current request for adjudgment system faces several issues, including prolonged case processing times, fairness concerns, and a lack of accountability and transparency in adjudication. In particular, the average case processing time at the Tax Tribunal significantly exceeds the statutory limit of 90 days, often extending to over 170 days, which undermines the effectiveness of the system. Additionally, the excessive use of reassessment decisions, the overrepresentation of former National Tax Service (NTS) officials as adjudicators, and the insufficient expertise of non-permanent adjudicators have raised concerns, necessitating reforms to enhance the system's reliability. This study aims to propose practical improvements to the request for adjudgment system by focusing on enhancing systemicity, efficiency, fairness, and accountability. To achieve this, the study analyzes the operational status of the request for adjudgment system, identifies key issues, and presents viable policy recommendations. The research methodology includes a review of existing laws and previous studies, an analysis of Tax Tribunal operation statistics, and consultations with relevant experts. The study concluded that, first, given the specialized nature of tax cases, it is more urgent to internally consolidate the fragmented tax appeals process than to consolidate the administrative appeals process as a whole. The objection and request for examination procedures should be abolished and merged into a request for adjudgment procedure. The request for examination by Board of Audit should also be reviewed for its existence as it lacks substantive remedies. The preliminary relief system, the pre-asseeement review system, should be retained. Second, institutional mechanisms should be put in place to strengthen compliance with statutory deadlines in order to speed up the request for adjudgment system. This could include establishing a dedicated intake team, introducing a timely filing requirement under the Civil Procedure Code, limiting re-examination procedure to exceptional cases where the reasons stipulated in the law are met, and introducing a conciliation system instead of a reinvestigation decision. Third, the system of non-standing tax judges needs to be abolished or supplemented to strengthen fairness. The current system of non-standing tax judges should be improved to allow for the appointment of outside experts to serve in open positions for a limited period of time. It is advisable to eliminate the Small Claims Division and allocate six tribunals to specific types of cases, with all tribunals being assigned small claims cases that fall within that type, but each tribunal should prioritize the hearing of small claims cases by the presiding judge alone if certain requirements are met. Fourth, to enhance accountability, it is necessary to introduce a mediation system. Initially, the mediation system should be applied only to tax appeals, with a legal basis established in the National Tax Basic Act. Additionally, legislative measures should be taken to define the mediation procedures, content, and effects. This study contributes to improving the effectiveness of the request for adjudgment system and strengthening public trust in tax dispute resolution mechanisms by providing concrete policy recommendations. In future research, it would be meaningful to conduct a comparative analysis with other countries' tax appeals systems to find out how to further improve them.