채권자취소권의 상대효와 상속세에 대한 후발적 경정청구 ―대법원 2020. 11. 26. 선고 2014두46485 판결을 계기로― (The Obligee Revocation under Article 406 Korean Civil Code and the Petition for Reassessment ex post in Inheritance Tax ―Supreme Court Decision 2014Du46485 decided November 26, 2020―)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국가족법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 가족법연구 / 38권 / 2호 / 1 ~ 52페이지
· 저자명 : 서종희

초록

This article criticized Supreme Court Decision 2014Du46485 Decided November 26, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Case’). The argument of the Case has been developed under the implicit premise that ‘the tax payer cannot request for reassessment based on subsequent events ― unless the object of taxation is retrospectively nullified.’ However, this premise is invalid. Not only is there no ground that can support the premise, but also the premise itself is inconsistent with previous precedents. Moreover, while the Case cited several previous cases to support its argument, further inspection revealed that the cited cases do not support the logic and conclusion of the Case.
The Supreme Court maintains the view that the judgment of revocation of fraudulent transfer has effectiveness between the obligee and the transferee but that the judgment has no effectiveness on third parties such as the obligor who is not a party to the obligee revocation. When the obligee revoked the obligor’s endowment to the predecessor, if the obligee satisfy his/her claims from the proceeds of the auction proceedings held by the obligee after the obligee revocation, the result is not justified if all or most of the proceeds are applied to inheritance tax liabilities and gift tax liabilities incurred after the revocation, so that the obligee who file an action for obligee revocation receives nothing at all. Thus, contrary to the conclusion of the Case, this paper argued that the inheritor has the right to request for reassessment based on subsequent events in inheritance tax when the obligee revoked the obligor’s endowment to the predecessor.
To put it in a nutshell, the Case is not reasonable in that the legislative objective of the request for reassessment is to ‘reflect the realities of the situation where there has been a change in the facts of the tax case by imposing the appropriate tax to bring the tax liability determined to conform to the changed facts.

영어초록

This article criticized Supreme Court Decision 2014Du46485 Decided November 26, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Case’). The argument of the Case has been developed under the implicit premise that ‘the tax payer cannot request for reassessment based on subsequent events ― unless the object of taxation is retrospectively nullified.’ However, this premise is invalid. Not only is there no ground that can support the premise, but also the premise itself is inconsistent with previous precedents. Moreover, while the Case cited several previous cases to support its argument, further inspection revealed that the cited cases do not support the logic and conclusion of the Case.
The Supreme Court maintains the view that the judgment of revocation of fraudulent transfer has effectiveness between the obligee and the transferee but that the judgment has no effectiveness on third parties such as the obligor who is not a party to the obligee revocation. When the obligee revoked the obligor’s endowment to the predecessor, if the obligee satisfy his/her claims from the proceeds of the auction proceedings held by the obligee after the obligee revocation, the result is not justified if all or most of the proceeds are applied to inheritance tax liabilities and gift tax liabilities incurred after the revocation, so that the obligee who file an action for obligee revocation receives nothing at all. Thus, contrary to the conclusion of the Case, this paper argued that the inheritor has the right to request for reassessment based on subsequent events in inheritance tax when the obligee revoked the obligor’s endowment to the predecessor.
To put it in a nutshell, the Case is not reasonable in that the legislative objective of the request for reassessment is to ‘reflect the realities of the situation where there has been a change in the facts of the tax case by imposing the appropriate tax to bring the tax liability determined to conform to the changed facts.

참고자료

· 없음