earticle

영어

Depending on whether the notice for payment about the premium of the national pension scheme is an administrative measure for assessment or not, it is decided that a taxpayer can litigate about existence and the number of premium of the obligation of payment against the National Pension Service(NPS). The constitutional court ruled that the notice for payment can be explained into three different ways. Firstly, the notice is not an administrative measure for assessment, but that for collection. This point came from the NPS. Secondly, although the notice is an administrative for assessment and collection, as it is a post-measure, the taxpayer should litigate in pre-measure procedure, not post-measure procedure. This opinion came from the administration office for national health and welfare. Lastly, the notice is an administrative measure, therefore, the taxpayer can litigate it against the notice of NPS. This assertion came from the taxpayer who claimed the right of refunding the premium to the court. I support the last one. It is reasonable and excellent for helping the taxpayers claim the right of refunding easily. It is justified on the principal of existing the sovereignty in people constitutionally.
The boundary of social security tax is the part of unexplored field. Specially, the procedure law of social security tax is so severe that the opinions of NPS and administration office can be accepted easily, but that of taxpayer can't be accepted by the court. Because the premium of social security tax is usually not much than income tax, the taxpayer can't litigate it with heavy load such as money and spending time without hesitation. I wonder that the right of taxpayer is decreased in the area of social security tax. I hope the scholars and the practical officers have the attitude of increasing the right of taxpayer.