일본에서의 조세부담의 착오와 구제방안에 관한 고찰

Abstract

Misunderstanding means a situation where the intention presumed from the act of labeling and the true intention (true intention) of the person who intends to make the representation differ and the person who intends to make the difference does not recognize it. Article 95 of the Civil Code provides that in order to protect such an expressive person, “an expression of intention is invalid if the elements of a juristic act are mistaken for an expression of intention.” However, the provision stated in the proviso that “If a person who has declared his intent is grossly negligent, the person who declared his intent cannot assert his intent to declare his intention to be invalid”, because accepting such invalidation always would damage the security. The Civil Code aims to stabilize the transactions between an avowed party and the other party. The parties to a contract are aware of a mistake in the elements of the contract, and both parties considered the possibility of making a request for rectification if they invalidate the contract and nullify the economic effect, and considered a request for a later rectification. First, if a dispute arises between the parties to a contract concerning the success or failure of a miscomprehension, the contract falls under Article 23, paragraph (2), item (i) of the Act on General Law of National Taxes and becomes a grounds. However, the case discussed in this paper were those in which both parties were aware that the contract was invalid due to miscomprehension, so they did not fight in the lawsuit, but were also found to have existed even in the judgment. In such case, will Article 23, Paragraph 2, Item 3 of the Act on General Law of National Taxes and Article 6, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Order for Enforcement of the Act on General Law of National Taxes apply? Article 6(1) and (2) of the Order for Enforcement of the Act on General Law of National Taxes specify Article 23(2) and (3) of the Act on General Law of National Taxes. Requests for rectification by rescission or the exercise of the right of termination are accepted in the express text, but the application in the case of invalidation is not clear. The taxpayer of this case argued that this provision was merely a typical solution to the contract, and there was no reasonable reason to exclude the miscomprehension from the scope of the application. Also, if the invalidation by mistake cannot be requested to be corrected as in the case of a claim, as in the case of the judgment in question, is there any other means of relieving the taxpayer? It can be said that this is the matter that we will discuss ultimately through the case concerned.