후발적 경정청구 사유로서 ‘판결’의 의미와 해석

The tax correction claim system was newly established in Article 45-2 of the National Tax Basic Act on December 22, 1994 to protect taxpayers' rights. However, in the case of subsequent tax correction claims as stipulated in Paragraph 2 of the same Article, there are many conflicting opinions regarding whether or not to recognize the grounds for a tax correction claim. Specifically, Article 45-2, Paragraph 2, Item 1 of the Act stipulates that “judgment” is a reason for a subsequent correction request, but the Supreme Court has limited this to cases where a civil judgment has been finalized, and has excluded criminal judgments or administrative judgments, which has caused controversy. The Supreme Court has previously recognized the grounds for a subsequent correction claim broadly by considering economic reality in several precedents, but in contrast, it is showing an attitude of interpreting the grounds for a subsequent correction claim very narrowly with regard to the ‘judgment’ in Article 45-2, Paragraph 2, Item 1 of the Act. This seems to have originated from the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the “judgment” in Article 45-2, Paragraph 2, Item 1 of the Act as when the “legal relationship under civil law” that serves as the basis for taxation has changed into something else by the judgment, thereby generating “judicial power.” However, this is problematic in that it is an attitude that narrowly interprets the correction claim system for taxpayer protection by ignoring economic reality and adhering to civil law logic. Looking at the wording of Article 45-2, Paragraph 2, Item 1 of the Act, it does not initially limit the type of ‘judgment’, and with the 2022 revision of the Tax Act, ‘requests for examination and requests for adjudication’ were added as subsequent grounds for requesting correction in parallel with ‘judgments’, making the basis for limiting ‘judgments’ to civil judgments even weaker. In addition, since the late correction claim system is a system established to protect taxpayers who are at a disadvantage compared to the tax authorities, the reasons for correction claims should be actively interpreted in a direction that reflects economic reality and protects taxpayers, so that it can conform to the legislative intent of the correction claim system and further properly implement the principle of substantive tax law. Ultimately, if we reinterpret the ‘judgment’ of Article 45-2, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 1 of the Act from this perspective, it would be a reasonable interpretation that conforms to the purpose of the correction claim system to regard it as a subsequent correction claim reason under Article 45-2, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 1 of the Act, regardless of whether it is a civil judgment, criminal judgment, or administrative judgment, as long as the circumstances that the basis for taxation has been lost are stated in the judgment. Therefore, it is requested that the Supreme Court's precedents be changed to reflect this interpretation in the future, and further, efforts should be made to improve the system in each sector, such as resolving the controversy through clear legislation.