Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
A claim in a civil action interrupting limitation on the national tax collection right
Supreme Court, Mar. 2, 2020, 2017Du41771 (judgment)
Case name: 조세채권존재확인
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where Article 27(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes sends the interruption of limitation on the national tax collection right to the Civil Act, may a confirmation action brought by the taxing authority against a taxpayer, in order to interrupt that limitation, be such a 'claim' under Article 168(i) of the Civil Act, and does it have standing when the taxpayer's assets lie abroad?
Holding
Yes. Article 28(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is not a limiting enumeration, so a 'claim' under Article 168(i) of the Civil Act may interrupt limitation on the national tax collection right where it is permitted. As a rule a tax creditor can realise its claim through the powers the tax laws confer, so absent special circumstances its interest in suing the taxpayer is hard to recognise; exceptionally it does where, e.g., the taxpayer is insolvent or cannot be found so that the enforcement powers cannot be used or the like, so that limitation cannot be interrupted on the grounds in Article 28(1), and the creditor, having taken all possible measures in good faith, finds the claim still unrealised as limitation draws near. Such an action for confirmation of an established tax claim is a public-law action between parties.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이와 같은 관련 규정의 체계와 문언 내용 등에 비추어, 민법 제168조 제1호가 소멸시효의 중단사유로 규정하고 있는 ‘청구’도 그것이 허용될 수 있는 경우라면 구 국세기본법 제27조 제2항에 따라 국세징수권의 소멸시효 중단사유가 될 수 있다고 봄이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
In light of the structure and the text of the relevant provisions as stated above, it is reasonable to hold that the 'claim' provided for in Article 168, subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act as a ground for interruption of extinctive prescription may also, if it is a claim that is permissible, constitute a ground for interruption of the extinctive prescription of the right to collect national taxes pursuant to Article 27, paragraph (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The appeal costs shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
그 시효중단을 위한 재판상 청구는 예외적으로 소의 이익이 있다고 봄이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
it is reasonable to hold that the judicial claim for such interruption exceptionally admits a legal interest in maintaining an action.
Factors
- 구 국세기본법은 민법에 따른 국세징수권 소멸시효 중단사유의 준용을 배제한다는 규정을 두지 않고 있고
- 조세채권도 민사상 채권과 비교하여 볼 때 성질상 민법에 정한 소멸시효 중단사유를 적용할 수 있는 경우라면 준용을 배제할 이유도 없다
- 납세의무자가 무자력이거나 소재불명이어서 체납처분 등의 자력집행권을 행사할 수 없는 등
- 조세채권자가 조세채권의 징수를 위하여 가능한 모든 조치를 충실히 취하여 왔음에도 조세채권이 실현되지 않은 채 소멸시효기간의 경과가 임박하는 등의 특별한 사정이 있는 경우에는
Unofficial English translation
• the former Framework Act on National Taxes contains no provision excluding the application mutatis mutandis of the Civil Act's grounds for interruption of the extinctive prescription of the right to collect national taxes, and
• as compared with a civil claim, there is no reason to exclude the application mutatis mutandis of the grounds for interruption of extinctive prescription prescribed in the Civil Act to a tax claim in cases where, by its nature, such grounds may be applied
• where the taxpayer is without means or whose whereabouts are unknown, so that the right to compulsory execution through self-help, such as a disposition for tax delinquency, cannot be exercised, etc., or
• where, notwithstanding that the holder of the tax claim has faithfully taken every possible measure for the collection of the tax claim, the tax claim remains unrealized and the lapse of the extinctive prescription period is imminent, or other special circumstances exist,
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
따라서 구 국세기본법 제28조 제1항 각호의 소멸시효 중단사유를 제한적·열거적 규정으로 보아 구 국세기본법 제28조 제1항 각호가 규정한 사유들만이 국세징수권의 소멸시효 중단사유가 된다고 볼 수는 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, the grounds for interruption of extinctive prescription set forth in each subparagraph of paragraph (1) of Article 28 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes cannot be regarded as restrictive and enumerative provisions such that only the grounds prescribed in each subparagraph of paragraph (1) of Article 28 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes would constitute grounds for interruption of the extinctive prescription of the right to collect national taxes.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What measures must a tax creditor have taken before a suit for confirmation counts as an exceptional case in which there is an interest in bringing it?
A later decision on actions for confirmation of tax claims brought after the 2013 amendment of the Framework Act on National Taxes would require this entry to be read again, as would a decision on whether other civil interruption grounds besides a 'claim' also apply by reference.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading treats the judgment as setting out a new standard for the exceptional interest in suit, while the independent reading records the precedent relation as not verifiable from the text, so it does not assume a new standard.
따라서 구 국세기본법 제28조 제1항 각호의 소멸시효 중단사유를 제한적·열거적 규정으로 보아 구 국세기본법 제28조 제1항 각호가 규정한 사유들만이 국세징수권의 소멸시효 중단사유가 된다고 볼 수는 없다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “What measures must a tax creditor have taken before a suit for confirmation counts as an exceptional case in which there is an interest in bringing it?” vs Independent “How close must prescription be to expiry for the exceptional interest in bringing such an action to arise?”
The primary reading asks what measures the creditor must have taken, while the independent reading asks how close prescription must be to expiry; these are different conditions of the same exception.
이와 같은 관련 규정의 체계와 문언 내용 등에 비추어, 민법 제168조 제1호가 소멸시효의 중단사유로 규정하고 있는 ‘청구’도 그것이 허용될 수 있는 경우라면 구 국세기본법 제27조 제2항에 따라 국세징수권의 소멸시효 중단사유가 될 수 있다고 봄이 타당하다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 28 March 2017 (2016Nu72596), found that the defendant was a foreign company with its head office in Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan, holding no property in Korea; that the collection of the corporate tax and surcharges through a request for assistance under Article 30 of the International Tax Coordination Act and Article 11 of the multilateral tax administration assistance treaty had not proceeded for want of mutual agreement; and that the demand had been refused and sent by international registered post. On those facts it found standing in the confirmation action and upheld the claim.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in the conclusion, though it noted that some passages of the appellate reasons were not apt. Since the defendant had no property in Korea, no attachment could be made, which the grounds in Article 28(1) of the former Act did not cover, and the taxes could not be collected despite efforts to obtain mutual agreement for a collection delegation, limitation was about to expire, so the action was exceptionally one in which there was an interest in bringing suit. The Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A tax creditor that can still exercise its powers of assessment and self-executing enforcement against the taxpayer, so that there is no special circumstance making a suit necessary.
- A case in which the taxpayer's property can be found in Korea and attachment or another measure can interrupt limitation under Article 28(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.
- A tax claim imposed for a tax period after the amendment of the Framework Act on National Taxes on 1 January 2013, since the decision applied the version in force before that amendment.
Record verification notes
Set out first what the taxing authority did to realise the claim, measure by measure, and confirm that each of the statutory interruption grounds in Article 28(1) was unavailable; the exception turns on all possible measures having been taken in good faith. Then check the expiry date of the limitation period against the date the action was filed, since the Court relied on expiry being imminent. Finally confirm which version of the Framework Act on National Taxes governs the tax period concerned.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 민법 제168조 제1호에서 소멸시효의 중단사유로 규정하고 있는 ‘청구’가 국세징수권의 소멸시효 중단사유가 될 수 있는지 여부(한정 적극) [2] 조세채권의 소멸시효 중단을 위한 재판상 청구에 예외적으로 소의 이익이 있는 경우 [3] 국가 등 과세주체가 당해 확정된 조세채권의 소멸시효 중단을 위하여 납세의무자를 상대로 제기한 조세채권존재확인의 소의 법적 성질(=공법상 당사자소송)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether the 'claim' provided for in Article 168, subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act as a ground for interruption of extinctive prescription may constitute a ground for interruption of the extinctive prescription of the right to collect national taxes (limited affirmative) [2] Whether a judicial claim for the purpose of interrupting the extinctive prescription of a tax claim exceptionally admits a legal interest in maintaining an action [3] The legal nature of an action seeking confirmation of the existence of a tax claim, brought by the State or other taxing authority against a taxpayer for the purpose of interrupting the extinctive prescription of the relevant determined tax claim (= an action inter partes under public law)
Summary of the holding
[1] 구 국세기본법(2013. 1. 1. 법률 제11604호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제27조 제2항은 국세징수권의 소멸시효에 관하여 국세기본법 또는 세법에 특별한 규정이 있는 것을 제외하고는 민법에 따른다고 규정하고 있고, 제28조 제1항은 납세고지(제1호), 독촉 또는 납부최고(제2호), 교부청구(제3호), 압류(제4호)를 국세징수권의 소멸시효 중단사유로 규정하고 있다. 위 납세고지, 독촉 또는 납부최고, 교부청구, 압류는 국세징수를 위해 국세징수법에 규정된 특유한 절차들로서 국세기본법이 규정한 특별한 국세징수권 소멸시효 중단사유이기는 하다. 그러나 구 국세기본법은 민법에 따른 국세징수권 소멸시효 중단사유의 준용을 배제한다는 규정을 두지 않고 있고, 조세채권도 민사상 채권과 비교하여 볼 때 성질상 민법에 정한 소멸시효 중단사유를 적용할 수 있는 경우라면 준용을 배제할 이유도 없다. 따라서 구 국세기본법 제28조 제1항 각호의 소멸시효 중단사유를 제한적·열거적 규정으로 보아 구 국세기본법 제28조 제1항 각호가 규정한 사유들만이 국세징수권의 소멸시효 중단사유가 된다고 볼 수는 없다. 이와 같은 관련 규정의 체계와 문언 내용 등에 비추어, 민법 제168조 제1호가 소멸시효의 중단사유로 규정하고 있는 ‘청구’도 그것이 허용될 수 있는 경우라면 구 국세기본법 제27조 제2항에 따라 국세징수권의 소멸시효 중단사유가 될 수 있다고 봄이 타당하다. [2] 조세는 국가존립의 기초인 재정의 근간으로서, 세법은 공권력 행사의 주체인 과세관청에 부과권이나 우선권 및 자력집행권 등 세액의 납부와 징수를 위한 상당한 권한을 부여하여 공익성과 공공성을 담보하고 있다. 따라서 조세채권자는 세법이 부여한 부과권 및 자력집행권 등에 기하여 조세채권을 실현할 수 있어 특별한 사정이 없는 한 납세자를 상대로 소를 제기할 이익을 인정하기 어렵다. 다만 납세의무자가 무자력이거나 소재불명이어서 체납처분 등의 자력집행권을 행사할 수 없는 등 구 국세기본법(2013. 1. 1. 법률 제11604호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제28조 제1항이 규정한 사유들에 의해서는 조세채권의 소멸시효 중단이 불가능하고 조세채권자가 조세채권의 징수를 위하여 가능한 모든 조치를 충실히 취하여 왔음에도 조세채권이 실현되지 않은 채 소멸시효기간의 경과가 임박하는 등의 특별한 사정이 있는 경우에는, 그 시효중단을 위한 재판상 청구는 예외적으로 소의 이익이 있다고 봄이 타당하다. [3] 국가 등 과세주체가 당해 확정된 조세채권의 소멸시효 중단을 위하여 납세의무자를 상대로 제기한 조세채권존재확인의 소는 공법상 당사자소송에 해당한다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The appeal costs shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 국세기본법(2013. 1. 1. 법률 제11604호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제27조 제2항, 제28조 제1항, 민법 제168조 제1호 [2] 구 국세기본법(2013. 1. 1. 법률 제11604호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제27조 제2항, 제28조 제1항, 민법 제168조 제1호, 행정소송법 제12조 [3] 구 국세기본법(2013. 1. 1. 법률 제11604호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제27조 제2항, 제28조 제1항, 민법 제168조 제1호, 행정소송법 제3조 제2호
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger