Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
Delegation limits of an enforcement decree and the predictability test
Supreme Court, July 29, 2021, 2020Du39655 (judgment)
Case name: 법인세경정거부처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does sub-item (a) of Item 9-2 of Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Corporate Tax Act, which treats a business-unrelated advance and its interest left unrecovered without just cause until the special relationship ends as one of the profits under Article 15(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act, exceed the delegation in Article 15(3) of that Act and so breach the principle of tax legality?
Holding
It does not. Whether a delegated instrument exceeds the delegation is decided by fixing the statutory limits objectively from the form and content of the delegating provision together with the overall system and purpose of the Act, and then comparing the instrument with those limits; predictability, judged organically over the related provisions rather than from a single clause, is one of the important criteria. Article 15(3) of the former Act delegated not only the income defined in paragraph (1) but also amounts treated as income for policy reasons of income disposition or similar reasons, and a business-unrelated advance left unrecovered without just cause until the special relationship ends falls within that delegation, so the decree provision merely made the delegated purpose concrete and is hard to evaluate as a breach of the principle of tax legality.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
법규명령의 내용이 위와 같이 확정된 법률의 위임 범위 내에 있다고 인정되거나 법률이 예정하고 있는 바를 구체적으로 명확하게 한 것으로 인정되면 법규명령은 무효로 되지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
Where the content of delegated legislation is recognized as falling within the scope of the delegation under an Act determined as above, or is recognized as making concrete and clear what the Act anticipates, the delegated legislation is not rendered invalid.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
나아가 어느 시행령 규정이 모법의 위임 범위를 벗어난 것인지를 판단할 때 중요한 기준 중 하나는 예측 가능성이다.
Unofficial English translation
Furthermore, one of the important criteria when determining whether a provision of an Enforcement Decree exceeds the scope of the delegation under the parent Act is predictability.
Factors
- 직접적인 위임 법률조항의 형식과 내용뿐만 아니라 법률의 전반적인 체계와 목적 등도 아울러 고려하여 법률의 위임 범위나 한계를 객관적으로 확정한 다음 법규명령의 내용과 비교해서 판단해야 한다
- 어느 시행령 규정이 모법의 위임 범위를 벗어난 것인지를 판단할 때 중요한 기준 중 하나는 예측 가능성이다
- 관련 법조항 전체를 유기적·체계적으로 종합하여 판단하여야 한다
- ‘소득처분을 위한 조세정책상 이유 등으로 익금으로 보는 것’도 포함된다고 봄이 타당한 점
- 법인이 정당한 사유 없이 특수관계가 소멸되는 날까지 회수하지 않은 업무무관 가지급금 등은 구 법인세법 제15조 제1항이 정한 익금에는 해당하지 않지만 소득처분을 위한 조세정책상 이유로 익금으로 보는 것으로서 구 법인세법 제15조 제3항의 위임 범위에 포함되므로
Unofficial English translation
• the scope or limits of the delegation under an Act must be objectively determined by taking into consideration not only the form and content of the directly relevant statutory provisions of delegation but also the overall system and purposes of the Act, and then compared with the content of the delegated legislation for judgment
• one of the important criteria when determining whether a provision of an Enforcement Decree exceeds the scope of the delegation under the parent Act is predictability
• the relevant statutory provisions must be comprehensively and organically and systematically construed and taken into account in the determination
• it is proper to regard it as also including 'deeming an amount to be gross income for reasons of tax policy in furtherance of an income disposition, etc.'
• advances paid that are unrelated to business, etc. which a corporation has not recovered without justifiable grounds by the date on which the special relationship ceases to exist do not fall under the gross income prescribed in Article 15 (1) of the former Corporate Tax Act but are deemed gross income for reasons of tax policy in furtherance of an income disposition, and therefore are included within the scope of the delegation under Article 15 (3) of the former Corporate Tax Act,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2008. 11. 27. 선고 2006두19570 판결(공2008하, 1812), 대법원 2020. 6. 18. 선고 2016두43411 전원합의체 판결(공2020하, 1399)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2006Du19570 decided November 27, 2008 (Gong 2008 Ha, 1812), Supreme Court En Banc Decision 2016Du43411 decided June 18, 2020 (Gong 2020 Ha, 1399)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2008. 11. 27. 선고 2006두19570 판결(공2008하, 1812), 대법원 2020. 6. 18. 선고 2016두43411 전원합의체 판결(공2020하, 1399)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How far may a presidential decree treat an amount that was never income under Article 15(1) as income for policy reasons of income disposition or similar reasons before it steps outside the delegation read in the light of the predictability test?
An amendment to Article 15(3) of the Corporate Tax Act or to Article 11, Item 9-2 of its Enforcement Decree, including the current sub-item (a) of Item 9, would call for this entry to be read again. A later decision revising the predictability criterion or the treatment of business-unrelated advances would do the same, as would a judgment of the Suwon High Court on remand that resolves the remaining grounds of appeal.
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 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Circumstances weighed”
Both readings record that the burden of proof is not addressed, so this axis shows no real gap; the substantive divergence lies in the form of the standard, where the primary lists requirements and the independent weighs circumstances as a whole.
직접적인 위임 법률조항의 형식과 내용뿐만 아니라 법률의 전반적인 체계와 목적 등도 아울러 고려하여Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How far may a presidential decree treat an amount that was never income under Article 15(1) as income for policy reasons of income disposition or similar reasons before it steps outside the delegation read in the light of the predictability test?” vs Independent “What circumstances constitute a justifiable reason for not recovering advances before the special relationship ends?”
The primary asks how far a decree may treat non-income amounts as income before it exceeds the delegation under the predictability test, while the independent asks what justifiable reason would excuse not recovering advances before the special relationship ends.
법규명령의 내용이 위와 같이 확정된 법률의 위임 범위 내에 있다고 인정되거나 법률이 예정하고 있는 바를 구체적으로 명확하게 한 것으로 인정되면 법규명령은 무효로 되지 않는다.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 Suwon High Court, in its judgment of 29 April 2020 (2019Nu11923), held that sub-item (a) of Item 9-2 of Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Corporate Tax Act, as in force before the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 29529 of 12 February 2019, exceeded the delegation in Article 15(3) of the former Corporate Tax Act and was therefore void for breach of the principle of tax legality.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court reversed. It held that the court below had misapprehended the law on the principle of tax legality and failed to conduct the examination required, which affected the judgment, because the matters delegated by Article 15(3) include amounts treated as income for income disposition reasons or similar reasons and the decree provision falls inside that delegation. The other grounds of appeal were not examined, and the case was sent back to the Suwon High Court on the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A receivable for which a just cause recognised by a decree of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance exists, such as recovery being impossible because of litigation over the claim and the debt.
- An amount that already falls within the income defined in Article 15(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act, where the question of what paragraph (3) delegates does not arise in the same way.
- A case governed by the Enforcement Decree as amended by Presidential Decree No. 29529 of 12 February 2019 or by the Corporate Tax Act as amended by Act No. 16008 of 24 December 2018, since this decision applied the earlier versions.
Record verification notes
Set the version of Article 15 of the Corporate Tax Act and of Item 9-2 of Article 11 of its Enforcement Decree in force on the date of the tax disposition at issue, since the decision named the pre-amendment texts and noted the current sub-item (a) of Item 9. Then check whether the sum treated as income is genuinely a business-unrelated advance under sub-item (b) of Item (iv) of Article 28(1) of the former Act, and keep the ground of appeal, here the alleged invalidity of the decree provision, distinct from disputes over how the provision was applied.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 법규명령이 법률의 위임 범위를 벗어났는지 판단하는 방법 / 시행령 규정이 모법의 위임 범위를 벗어난 것인지 판단할 때 중요한 기준 중 하나인 ‘예측 가능성’의 의미 및 예측 가능성의 유무를 판단하는 방법 [2] 구 법인세법 시행령 제11조 제9호의2 (가)목이 구 법인세법 제15조 제3항의 위임 범위를 벗어난 것인지 문제 된 사안에서, 법인이 정당한 사유 없이 특수관계가 소멸되는 날까지 회수하지 않은 업무무관 가지급금 등은 구 법인세법 제15조 제1항이 정한 익금에는 해당하지 않지만 소득처분을 위한 조세정책상 이유로 익금으로 보는 것으로서 구 법인세법 제15조 제3항의 위임 범위를 벗어난 것이라고 볼 수 없다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The method of determining whether delegated legislation exceeds the scope of the delegation under an Act / The meaning of 'predictability,' which is one of the important criteria when determining whether a provision of an Enforcement Decree exceeds the scope of the delegation under the parent Act, and the method of determining whether predictability exists [2] In a case where it was at issue whether subparagraph 9-2 (a) of Article 11 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act exceeded the scope of the delegation under Article 15 (3) of the former Corporate Tax Act, a case holding that advances paid that are unrelated to business, etc. which a corporation has not recovered without justifiable grounds by the date on which the special relationship ceases to exist do not fall under the gross income prescribed in Article 15 (1) of the former Corporate Tax Act but are deemed gross income for reasons of tax policy in furtherance of an income disposition, and therefore cannot be regarded as exceeding the scope of the delegation under Article 15 (3) of the former Corporate Tax Act
Summary of the holding
[1] 법규명령이 법률의 위임 범위를 벗어났는지는 직접적인 위임 법률조항의 형식과 내용뿐만 아니라 법률의 전반적인 체계와 목적 등도 아울러 고려하여 법률의 위임 범위나 한계를 객관적으로 확정한 다음 법규명령의 내용과 비교해서 판단해야 한다. 법규명령의 내용이 위와 같이 확정된 법률의 위임 범위 내에 있다고 인정되거나 법률이 예정하고 있는 바를 구체적으로 명확하게 한 것으로 인정되면 법규명령은 무효로 되지 않는다. 나아가 어느 시행령 규정이 모법의 위임 범위를 벗어난 것인지를 판단할 때 중요한 기준 중 하나는 예측 가능성이다. 이는 해당 시행령의 내용이 이미 모법에서 구체적으로 위임되어 있는 사항을 규정한 것으로서 누구라도 모법 자체로부터 위임된 내용의 대강을 예측할 수 있는 범위에 속한다는 것을 뜻한다. 이러한 예측 가능성의 유무는 해당 조항 하나만을 가지고 판단할 것은 아니고 법률의 입법 취지 등을 고려하여 관련 법조항 전체를 유기적·체계적으로 종합하여 판단하여야 한다. [2] 구 법인세법 시행령(2019. 2. 12. 대통령령 제29529호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제11조 제9호의2 (가)목이 구 법인세법(2018. 12. 24. 법률 제16008호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제15조 제3항의 위임 범위를 벗어난 것인지 문제 된 사안에서, 구 법인세법 제15조 제3항이 대통령령으로 정할 것을 위임한 사항에는 제1항이 정한 익금뿐만 아니라 ‘소득처분을 위한 조세정책상 이유 등으로 익금으로 보는 것’도 포함된다고 봄이 타당한 점, 법인이 정당한 사유 없이 특수관계가 소멸되는 날까지 회수하지 않은 업무무관 가지급금 등은 구 법인세법 제15조 제1항이 정한 익금에는 해당하지 않지만 소득처분을 위한 조세정책상 이유로 익금으로 보는 것으로서 구 법인세법 제15조 제3항의 위임 범위에 포함되므로, 위 시행령 조항은 구 법인세법 제15조 제3항의 위임 범위에서 그 위임 취지를 구체적으로 명확하게 한 것으로 볼 수 있는 점에 비추어, 위 시행령 조항이 모법인 구 법인세법 제15조 제3항의 위임 범위를 벗어남으로써 조세법률주의에 위배된다고 평가하기 어렵다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 헌법 제75조 [2] 구 법인세법(2018. 12. 24. 법률 제16008호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제15조, 구 법인세법 시행령(2019. 2. 12. 대통령령 제29529호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제11조 제9호의2 (가)목(현행 제11조 제9호 (가)목 참조)
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