세법상 사해행위취소소송 피보전채권 발생 시기 재정립 ―확정 시 기준 계보의 비판과 성립 시 기준의 정립―

This Article demonstrates that, in actions to revoke a fraudulent act under Article 25 of the National Tax Collection Act (NTCA), a tax claim as the protected (preserved) claim arises upon its establishment (i.e., accrual) without awaiting determination (i.e., assessment). This Article proceeds in three steps：(1) quantitative text analysis that empirically identifies and reproduces the practical divergence in case law；(2) a genealogical critique of the determination (assessment) standard；and (3) a doctrinal construction of the establishment (accrual) standard. Based on quantitative text analysis of 150 Supreme Court and High Court decisions (2001～2025), this Article shows that the competing standards relied on different Supreme Court precedents as focal authorities and entrenched distinct stock phrases during their development, thereby perpetuating divergence and confusion. The determination-time lineage rests on reliance on several Supreme Court decisions－Decision 2000Da37821, Decision 2006Da66753 and Decision 2003Da30616－ while overlooking their specific contexts. The contexts overlooked include (i) the transitional period for determining the establishment time of comprehensive income tax in cases of deemed-bonus allocations, (ii) a period of legislative under-specification regarding the establishment of surtaxes, (iii) unlawful assessments imposed on persons other than the taxpayer. There is also the problem that the phrase “concrete establishment” has been inappropriately transplanted from the regulatory context of confirmation acts in administrative-appeal litigation. In view of the global prevalence of the establishment/determination distinction, the text and structure of NTCA Article 25, and the standards employed in tax criminal law, this Article argues that the establishment-time standard is legally sound. Even where determination fixes the tax amount, enables a demand for performance, and confers enforceability, these matters concern only the time-of-exercise requirement (the “when compulsory collection is pursued” condition), not the conditions for the arising of the protected claim. Although issues remain regarding identification of establishment times for particular tax items, the binding force of unlawful administrative acts, and provisional preservation, they can be addressed through reasonable legislation and adjustments in case law. Because tax claims distinguish establishment from determination, the timing question determines the temporal order vis-a-vis the fraudulent act and is a pivotal issue directly tied to litigation outcomes. The contributions of this Article are as follows：(i) it organizes the practical establishment and determination standards and their developmental paths in the case law, thereby reducing litigation burdens for the courts and the tax authority；(ii) it blocks the repetition of errors that produced the determination-time lineage；(iii) it consolidates the doctrine of the establishment-time standard by presenting comprehensive and novel legal arguments；and (iv) it contributes to institutional entrenchment through feasible implementation measures.