초록 열기/닫기 버튼
대법원 2007. 2. 15. 선고 2005도9546 판결 다수의견은 조세채권의 확정에 아무런 영향을미치지 않았음에도 조세채권의 징수를 불가능하게 하는 경우 일정한 요건 하에 조세포탈죄의 성립을 인정하였다. 그러나 조세포탈죄 법률 조항 자체로 조세의 징수 불능경우를 조세의 포탈 결과로 포섭하여 해석하기 어렵고, 조세의 환급·공제가 모두 조세의확정과 관련된 개념으로서 원칙적으로 조세 포탈의 개념을 조세 확정을 넘어 징수불능의 경우까지 확장할 근거는 존재하지 않는 점, 사기 기타 부정한 행위와 징수 불능이라는 결과 사이에 인과관계가 존재한다고 보기 어려운 점, 구성요건은 기수시기에모두 갖춰져야 하는데, 신고납부기한을 기수시기로 두고 있는 현행 조세범처벌법에대해 기수시기 이후 사정인 징수 불능의 결과를 토대로 조세범처벌법의 구성요건해당 여부를 판단할 수 없는 점 등을 고려하면 이러한 대법원의 다수의견은 쉽게 찬동하기 어렵다. 체납처분면탈죄의 구성요건이 본 판결이 선고된 이후인 2010년 개정되어그 적용 대상이 ‘체납자’에서 ‘납세의무자’로 개정되었는바 법문상 조세채권의 확정을요하지 않고 있는 점, 민사법과 조세법의 근본적 차이에 비추어 강제집행면탈죄의법리를 그대로 적용하기 어려운 점, 조세채권 확정은 과세관청 입장에서의 징수권 발현시기를 규정한 것이지 조세채권의 실효성이 담보되는 시기를 규정한 것이 아니고,
The Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9546 delivered on February 15, 2007 held in a majority opinion that in a case where the collection of tax claims is made impossible, although it had no impact on the final determination of tax claims, it may constitute a crime of tax evasion under certain requirements. However, it is hard to endorse the majority opinion of the Supreme Court given that willful default of tax liability may not be widely interpreted as the outcome of tax evasion under the provisions of the crime of tax evasion, and that, in principle, there are no grounds to extend and apply the concept of tax evasion, beyond the final determination of an obligation to pay taxes, to willful default of tax liability, as a tax refund or deduction is a concept related to the establishment of an obligation to pay taxes, and also it is hard to consider that there are correlations between fraudulent or other unlawful acts and the outcome of willful default of tax liability, and while the elements of a crime should be met by the time of consummation, it is hard to determine if willful default of tax liability, which occurred after the point of consummation, meets the requirements for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act where the payment period amounts to the point of consummation. If tax claims has already been established, pre-income concealment might constitute a Crime of Evasion of Disposition on Default, whether a final determination on the claims was made or not, given that the requirements for the Crime of Evasion of Disposition on Default were amended in 2010, after the above-mentioned decision by the Supreme Court had been delivered, to change persons subject to the law from a ‘defaulter’ to a ‘taxpayer’ and therefore the establishment of tax claims is not required as specified in the law, and that the legal principles of the Evasion of Execution cannot be directly applied considering fundamental differences between the Civil Law and tax laws, and that the establishment of tax claims stipulates the timing of when tax authority secures the right to impose and collect taxes, not the timing of when the effectiveness of the tax claims is guaranteed, and, in fact, tax claims should be provided with protection from the time when the obligation to pay taxes is established. With respect to legalization, consideration should be given to modify relevant laws and to apply the Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes to the Crime of Evasion of Disposition on Default based on the amount of tax evasion, considering that the purpose of the Crime of Evasion of Disposition on Default is the same as that of the Crime of Tax Evasion and that if an act of evading disposition on default has been carried out for the purpose of being in default of tax liability since the tax claims was established, the act is in effect the same as tax evasion.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
Tax evasion, Evasion of Disposition on Default, Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Fraud and Other Unlawful Activities, Establishment of Obligation to Pay Taxes, Final Determina tion of Obligation to Pay Taxes
