조세심판원 재조사 결정의 기속력

The “remand for reinvestigation” (jaejosa gyeoljeong) issued by the Tax Tribunal has long been recognized as one of its decision types, even before the Framework Act on National Taxes expressly provided a statutory basis for such decisions. Nevertheless, persistent controversies have surrounded both the legal meaning of this decision type and the scope of its binding effect, even after the statutory provision was introduced. In this regard, the Supreme Court’s recent judgment of July 25, 2024 (2022Du60745) (the “Subject Case”) is of particular significance, as it articulates a comprehensive doctrine addressing these issues. Drawing upon the factual background and reasoning of the Subject Case, this article examines the legal nature of the remand-for-reinvestigation decision and the extent to which it binds the tax authority. The main findings are summarized as follows. First, the article analyzes the proper object of challenge when the tax authority, following a remand-for-reinvestigation decision, maintains the original tax disposition. In light of established case law, prevailing administrative practice, the interpretation of Article 22-3(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the purpose of the proviso to Article 55(5) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it is appropriate to regard the original disposition itself as the object of subsequent litigation. Second, with respect to the binding effect of such remand decisions, the article examines whether the tax authority bears an obligation to conduct an appraisal. Considering the wording of the remand decision in the Subject Case, the method of determining acquisition value for in-kind contributions under the former Corporate Tax Act and its subordinate regulations, the systematic structure governing fair market value assessments, the need to prevent the hollowing-out of the statutory scheme, and practical constraints in tax administration, the remand decision cannot be construed as imposing an appraisal obligation on the tax authority. Third, the article addresses whether the scope of correction following a remand-for-reinvestigation decision is limited solely to downward adjustments. Taking into account the language of the order in the Subject Case, the relationship between downward correction and the prohibition on reformatio in peius, as well as administrative practice, the meaning of the remand decision should not be confined to the possibility of a downward correction alone. In conclusion, the Subject Case is sound in its reasoning. By clarifying whether the tax authority is bound to conduct an appraisal pursuant to a remand-for-reinvestigation decision, and whether post-remand corrections are restricted to downward adjustments, the Supreme Court has provided an authoritative framework that concretizes and clarifies both the meaning and binding scope of such decisions. This judgment thus carries substantial doctrinal significance for the theory and practice of tax adjudication.