경정청구기간이 남아 있는 경우 불복기간이 경과한 증액경정처분의 위법사유를 주장할 수 있는지 여부 - 대법원 2024. 6. 27. 선고 2021두39997 판결에 대한 평석을 겸하여 -

The Supreme Court sentenced on June 27, 2024, 2021Du39997(hereinafter referred to as the "target judgment"), in which the taxpayer reported the amount of tax and the tax office took an increase in correction, but if the period for requesting correction has passed and the period request for correction remains, the taxpayer may argue for the reasons for the increase in correction in addition to the reasons for the original tax report. According to the Article 45-2 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it was determined that cancellation of the increase in correction could not be sought, but the cancellation could be sought up to the limit of the original tax report. The target judgment can be evaluated as expanding the remedy for taxpayers' rights by allowing them to dispute the increase in correction, which has become irreplaceable, but there areseveral problems in legal terms. First, The Supreme Court's ruling on June 26, 2014(hereinafter referred to as the "comparative judgment") cited by the target judgment to support its argument ruled that the taxpayer could exercise the right to claim correction even if he did not dispute the tax amount reported by the taxpayer within the period of appeal, but the target judgment seems to have excessively interpreted the purpose of the comparative judgment as if it could dispute the irreplaceable increase in addition to the original tax report. Second, it theoretically takes the logic of the reverse absorption theory to dispute the reasons for the violation of the increase in correction disposition, which is inconsistent with the fact that the precedent has maintained the position of absorption theory even after the revision of the Framework Act on National Taxes on December 18, 2002. Third, according to the total-amount theory, both the request for correction and the cancellation of the taxable disposition are examined for the objective existence of the tax base and the amount of tax, so in addition to the reasons for the original tax report, the reason for the increase in correction is included in the scope of the judgment.