상속으로 인한 납세의무의 승계가 있는 경우 한정승인자의 고유재산에 대한 체납처분의 당부

Abstract

This study started from the question about whether it is really valid to regard even an inheritor’s proper property as chargeable property in delinquency disposition proceedings notwithstanding that in case there is limited acceptance of succession, only the inheritance, which is an inheritee’s inherited property, becomes chargeable property to repay an inheritee’s liabilities and bequeath in the procedure of disposition on default, The overall contents of this writing are briefly summarized as follows: In Chapter Ⅱ, this study looked into the basic framework of the succession of tax obligation system ‘in time of inheritance’, through which this study explicitly stated deducted problems. In other words, in the basic framework part of the succession of tax obligation system, this study considered the related law and regulation of the positive tax law related to succession of tax obligation ‘in time of inheritance’, confrontation of opinions surrounding the legal character of succession of tax obligation-an opinion supporting that all obligations of tax payment of an inheritee are succeeded from an inheritor, and another opinion that an inheritee’s duty of tax payment should be succeeded within the limit of inherited property- and this researcher’s position, and the limit of other succeeded tax obligation, an inheritee’s position, and the current tax authorities’ practical business(attachment of even a qualified acceptor’s own property) trends of disposition on default, etc. In addition, in the part of problems, this study pointed out that the practical business of disposition on default of the tax authorities’ as above goes dead against the aim of the limited acceptance of succession, and that such business handling of disposition on default is not valid in that such an arbitrary interpretation of law rather brings about the infringement of property rights of an inheritor who did limited recognition of succession. In Chapter Ⅲ, this study reviewed the legislation case of Japan, which we can take into account, because their system of acceptance of succession is similar to ours, and deducted implications thereof. As major implications, the legislation case of Japan as shown in the Framework Act of National Tax, and Regulations on National Tax Collection Act, which makes it clear that a qualified acceptor’s own property shall not be chargeable property of disposition on default in case succession of tax obligation consequent on inheritance, is the fruit of serving to harmony with the inheritance system under civil law, and also such a legislation case corresponds to the acceptance of succession system under civil law as well, thus making it possible for the nation to be faithful to protection of a qualified acceptor; in this context, such a legislation case of Japan could be a touchstone for improvement of our system which regards even an inheritor’s own property as chargeable property along with the denial of the effect of the limited acceptance of succession notwithstanding limited acceptance of succession. In IV, this study confirmed that there is a fundamental difference between simple acceptance and limited acceptance through the legal analysis of our acceptance of succession system, and in the light of such a difference, this study demonstrated that it is reasonable to consider that the scope of chargeable property under tax law differs depending on whether an inheritor did simple acceptance, or limited acceptance. Further, this study presented an legislative improvement plan with the aim of preventing any more controversy over this issue.