인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록·키워드
This thesis conducts analysis review which value does the Constitutional Court aim for related to the taxation law and what kind of differentiated characteristic does it have when compared to violation judgment standards of general law. Moreover, assuming that existing violation judgment standards are continuously applied, the study considered what the countermeasures for the problems that may occur in future are.
When looking at the analysis of decision examples in the Constitutional Court mainly, asset guarantee rule, proportion rule, and social market economic order rule can be considered as the common violation judgment standards that is based on constitution general principle and can be accepted as general principle of taxation law. Related to each violation judgment standard above, the writer proposed followings through this thesis.
First, related to the constitutional limit of taxation right, the Constitutional Court are not able to provide more persuasive judgment standards other than principle of excessive prohibition. But, concerning about how much constitutional maximum of assets, which tax cannot violate, is must be preceded firstly when a nation and individuals are distributing fault from individual economic activity in order to define how much maximum tax rate is without annihilating individual economic desire. In other words, the Constitutional Court defines violation judgment according to each specific issue defining asset limitations related to property limitations of tax rights.
Second, proportion principle which is acknowledged by the Constitutional Court is legitimacy of purpose, propriety of measure, minimum of damage, and benefit and protection of the law balance. This is only including regular judgment standards as judgment standard of the Constitutional Court. It actually does not provide clear judgment standards. Moreover, review on so-called constitutional limitations of political tax regarding ‘legitimacy of purpose’ requirement is necessary.
Third, the writer raised questions while analyzing result examples of Constitutional Court related to tax law from the worry that overturning phenomenon, which has reversed principle and exemption related to our constitutional economic order known as ‘social market economic order’, may occur through the Constitutional Court decision examples with emphasized ‘social’ aspect of social policy purpose rather than economic principle, which is a ‘market economic’. This is not irrelevant to the Constitutional Court’s opinion that easily acknowledges proper law’s ‘propriety of purpose’.
When looking at the analysis of decision examples in the Constitutional Court mainly, asset guarantee rule, proportion rule, and social market economic order rule can be considered as the common violation judgment standards that is based on constitution general principle and can be accepted as general principle of taxation law. Related to each violation judgment standard above, the writer proposed followings through this thesis.
First, related to the constitutional limit of taxation right, the Constitutional Court are not able to provide more persuasive judgment standards other than principle of excessive prohibition. But, concerning about how much constitutional maximum of assets, which tax cannot violate, is must be preceded firstly when a nation and individuals are distributing fault from individual economic activity in order to define how much maximum tax rate is without annihilating individual economic desire. In other words, the Constitutional Court defines violation judgment according to each specific issue defining asset limitations related to property limitations of tax rights.
Second, proportion principle which is acknowledged by the Constitutional Court is legitimacy of purpose, propriety of measure, minimum of damage, and benefit and protection of the law balance. This is only including regular judgment standards as judgment standard of the Constitutional Court. It actually does not provide clear judgment standards. Moreover, review on so-called constitutional limitations of political tax regarding ‘legitimacy of purpose’ requirement is necessary.
Third, the writer raised questions while analyzing result examples of Constitutional Court related to tax law from the worry that overturning phenomenon, which has reversed principle and exemption related to our constitutional economic order known as ‘social market economic order’, may occur through the Constitutional Court decision examples with emphasized ‘social’ aspect of social policy purpose rather than economic principle, which is a ‘market economic’. This is not irrelevant to the Constitutional Court’s opinion that easily acknowledges proper law’s ‘propriety of purpose’.
본문·목차
인공지능 문자 인식 모델을 통해 추출된 텍스트로, 일부 오타나 오류가 포함될 수 있으나 지속적으로 개선 중입니다.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
오류를 발견하셨다면 해당 부분을 드래그한 후 ' 를 통해 신고해주세요.
최근 본 자료 전체보기
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-001270548
