국세징수법에 의한 채권압류 및 대위와 상계적상 - 대상판결 : 대법원 2022. 12. 16. 선고 2022다218271 판결 - = A Review on the Debt Collection and Set-off under the Korean National Tax Collection Act

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Supreme Court Judgement studied in this thesis(hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Case”) pertains to the determination of subrogation rights exercised within the limits of the seizure of national and local government claims and the amount of default under the National Tax Collection Act.
The Judgement asserts that the claim concerned was filed to collect debt based on subrogation as a creditor under tax laws but not a claim to seek money claimed to be owed under th Civil Execution Act. The tax authorities demanded payment by exercising their subrogation rights under tax laws and obtained a Subject Case directing direct payment in monetary terms. However, the Subject Case misinterpreted the plaintiff's claim as a lawsuit for collection, ruling on the laws pertaining to the right of set-off by a debt collecting creditor, resulting in the tax authorities losing the case.
When tax authorities exercise creditor subrogation rights, the main consideration for the possibility of set-off lies in whether there can be an set-off between the tax claims held by the tax authorities against the defaulters and the claims for the return of withheld amounts held by the defaulters against the tax authorities. In other words, the possibility of offsetting the claim between the withheld amount and the claim held by the second obligor against the execution creditor(tax authorities) is not addressed as a legal principle regarding set-off when exercising creditor subrogation rights. Even in cases where discussion takes place to offset between the claims of the withheld amount and the execution creditor of the third obligor, if there is no change in the ownership of the withheld amount, ultimately, it must be considered as a matter similar to the allowance of set-off between conflicting claims and whether they are recognized. In this regard, for forced collection, it can be seen that tax authorities are no likely to have the capability to distinguish subrogation rights exercised as an execution creditor from actual debt collection.
However, tax laws are based on the public interest of taxation, which must secure tax collection as the financial foundation for the existence of the state or local governments. Therefore, if the claim for seizure money under tax laws is won based on the right of self-execution in procedural law and the priority right of tax in substantive law, as interpreted according to Article 53 of the Local Tax Collection Law, the debt should be interpreted as owed solely to the state, and not requiring any distribution among other creditors.