조세채권의 소멸시효 중단사유에 관한 연구: 재판상 청구를 중심으로

Abstract

The term ‘extinctive prescription system’ means a system that extinguishes a person’s right when the holder’s right isn‘t exercised for a certain period of time. This system is designed to maintain a social order that has lasted for a certain period of time and to exclude persons who sleep on their rights without exercising their rights from the preservation of evidence that becomes difficult over time. Nevertheless, if there is a certain act in the virtual state of non-exercise of rights, the effect of the existing prescription period will be lost, which is called the interrupting of the extinctive prescription. Recently, an important ruling has been issued regarding the causes interrupting extinctive prescription. It is particularly relevant to the judicial claim. For example, in the case where it became a question of whether the government could file a lawsuit against taxpayers due to the interrupting of the extinctive prescription, the supreme court ruled that it was possible if there were special circumstances. Regarding the special circumstances, the Supreme Court's ruling 2017 DU 41771 states that the tax payment is not sufficient or that the seizure cannot be initiated due to unknown address. Tax claims are no different from ordinary civil claims, so the reason for the interrupting of the extinctive prescription stipulated by the Civil Code can be applied to tax claims as long as they do not violate the nature of the claim. In a situation where the amount of arrears after the statute of extinctive prescription is increasing rapidly, it is necessary to secure the national finances and prevent malicious taxpayers who abuse the statute of limitations. The discussion between Japan and Germany is worth considering in comparison. And the discussion in Japan is especially similar to that in Korea. Some criticize that it is unclear what the special circumstances mean. The inefficiency of taxation administration is also pointed out. This is because lawsuits may have to be filed regardless of the amount of arrears. It will have to be supplemented by legislation or accumulated judicial precedents.