Earticle

구 신탁법에서는 수탁자가 의무를 위반하여 신탁재산에 손해가 발생한 경우에만 손해배상책임과 원상회복책임을 인정하여 수탁자나 제3자가 의 무 위반으로 이익을 취득하더라도 신탁재산에 손해가 발생하지 않은 경우 에는 수탁자의 책임을 인정하기 어려웠다. 2012년 개정 신탁법은 수탁자 의 충실의무에 대한 일반적인 조항을 신설하고 제43조의 제1항 및 제2항 을 통해 원상회복책임과 손해배상책임을 보완하는 동시에 충실의무를 위 반하여 수탁자나 제3자가 이익을 취득한 경우 수탁자가 이익 전부를 반환 하는 규정(이하 “이득토출책임”)을 신설하였다. 신탁법 제43조 제3항의 이 득토출책임 규정은 민법이 손해배상을 기본적인 구제수단으로 하고, 부당 이득의 반환범위 역시 손실을 한도로 하는 것을 고려할 때에 극히 예외적 인 구제수단이다. 따라서 본 논문은 신탁법 제43조의 기초가 된 영국의 부당이득법리와 원상회복책임을 개관하고, 영국의 위법행위로 인한 원상 회복 중 수탁자에게 적용한 이득토출책임 법리를 파악하기 위하여 신인관 계와 신인의무 법리 등도 함께 검토하였다. 영국의 원상회복책임에서도 형평법에 기인한 신인관계에는 이득토출책임을 일차적인 구제수단으로 적용하나 계약관계나 불법행위에 해당하는 경우에 이익을 바탕으로 하는 구 제수단을 적용하는 사례나 유형은 극히 드물다는 것도 확인하였다. 또한 영국의 부당이득과 원상회복책임이 일대일의 관계가 아님을 확인하였다. 현 민법이 손해배상책임을 기본적인 구제수단으로 하고, 부당이득 반환 역시 손실을 한도로 하는 현행 해석론을 고려할 때 민법의 일반적인 구제 수단을 이득 중심으로 재편하자는 주장은 수용되기 어려울 뿐 아니라, 폭 넓은 연구가 필요하다고 사료된다. 다만 신탁법 제43조의 도입에 따라 위법행위의 억지의 필요성이 강조되는 ‘신인관계에 해당하는 이사의 충실의 무 위반’에 대하여 이득토출책임을 도입하는 것은 적극적으로 고려해볼 필요가 있다.

The disgorgement of profits set out in Article 43(3) provides exceptional relief, preventing the trustee from realizing any gains resulting from a breach of the trustee's fiduciary duty. Before the enactment of article 43(3), there have been debates by legal scholars whether any legal basis already existed for disgorgement of profits in South Korea. "Unjust enrichment" and "management of another's affairs(negotiorum gestio)" were traditional remedies available to an injured party, however the legal basis for disgorgement of profits was tenuous. Thus, the legislature found it necessary to specially enact Article 43(3) to be able to impose this remedy. However, no case law has been developed so far and Article 43(3) is often overlooked due to its obscurity. To better understand it, this paper first examines the restitution by subtraction and restitution for wrongs. Then, this paper take closer look at one of the latter, the basic principles of disgorgement of profits in a breach of trustee's fiduciary duty in Anglo-American jurisprudence. In Anglo-American jurisprudence, the purpose of disgorgement of profits is to strip profits if they are gained in a breach of fiduciary duty owed by the trustee to its beneficiaries. Deterrence and prophylaxis are the strongest rational for disgorgement of profits for trustees. As a corollary to it, this paper also argues that the disgorgement of profits remedy should be applied to a corporation's board of directors.

구 신탁법에서는 수탁자가 의무를 위반하여 신탁재산에 손해가 발생한 경우에 손해배상책임과 원상회복책임만 을 인정하였고 수탁자나 제3자가 의무 위반으로 이익을 취득하더라도 신탁재산에 손해가 발생하지 않은 경우에 는 수탁자의 책임을 인정하기 어려웠다. 따라서 2012년 개정 신탁법은 수탁자의 충실의무에 대한 일반적인 조항 을 신설하고 제43조의 제1항 및 제2항의 원상회복책임과 손해배상책임을 보완하는 동시에, 충실의무를 위반하여 수탁자나 제3자가 이득을 취득한 경우 수탁자가 이득 전부를 반환하는 규정(이하 “이득토출책임”)을 신설하였다. 신탁법 제43조 제3항의 이득토출책임 규정은 민법이 손해배상을 기본적인 구제수단으로 하고, 부당이득의 반환 범위 역시 손실을 한도로 하는 것을 고려할 때에 극히 예외적인 구제수단이다. 따라서 본 논문은 신탁법 제43조 의 기초가 된 영국의 부당이득법리와 원상회복책임를 개관하고, 영국의 위법행위의 원상회복(Restitution for Wrongs) 중 수탁자에게 적용한 이득토출책임 법리를 파악하기 위하여 신인관계, 신인의무를 함께 검토하였다. 지위에 기인한 신인관계는 수탁자를 전형으로 하지만, 회사의 이사, 대리인 등을 포함한다. 이사의 구체적인 충실 의무 위반에 파편적으로 인정하는 개입권(경업금지)과 이익의 손해추정 조문(회사의 기회유용금지)은 수탁자의 이득토출책임과 마찬가지로 이익충돌 억지를 근거로 한다. 따라서 신탁법상 수탁자의 원상회복책임 및 이득토출 책임을 이사에게도 도입할 것을 적극적으로 검토할 필요가 있다

Article 43(1) of the Korean Trust Act, enacted in 2012, states: "Where a trustee has violated his duties incurring any loss to the trust property, the settlor, beneficiary, or other trustees where a number of trustees exist, may request the relevant trustee to restore, reinstate the trust property: Provided, that where it is impossible or substantially impracticable to reinstate the trust property, or excessive expenses are incurred in such reinstatement, or where any special ground exists making reinstatement inappropriate, a claim for damages may be raised." Furthermore, article 43(3) of the Korean Trust Act states that "where a trustee is in breach of a duty of loyalty stipulated in Articles 33 through 37, he should disgorge all the profits acquired by himself or a third party to the trust property, even if no loss has incurred to the trust property." The disgorgement remedy set out in Article 43(3) provides exceptional relief, preventing the trustee from realizing any gains resulting from a breach of the trustee's fiduciary duty. Yet, this powerful gain-based remedy has not been applied by courts in South Korea. Thus, it is difficult to understand a clear rule for determining disgorgement of profits case. Before the enactment of article 43(3), there have been debates by legal scholars whether any legal basis already existed for disgorgement of profits in South Korea. "Unjust enrichment" and "management of another's affairs(negotiorum gestio)" were traditional remedies available to an injured party, however the legal basis for disgorgement of profits was tenuous. Thus, the legislature found it necessary to specially enact Article 43(3) to be able to impose this remedy. However, no case law has been developed so far and Article 43(3) is often overlooked due to its obscurity. First, this paper will briefly examine the restitution by subtraction and restitution for wrongs. Then, this paper take closer look at one of the latter, the basic principles of disgorgement of profits in a breach of trustee's fiduciary duty in Anglo-American jurisprudence. In Anglo-American jurisprudence, the purpose of disgorgement of profits is to strip profits if they are gained in a breach of fiduciary duty owed by the trustee to its beneficiaries. The fiduciary duty of the trustee requires the fiduciary to exercise the highest duty of trust and confidence between the fiduciary and its beneficiaries. The fiduciary must exercise its powers and discretion carefully given the vulnerable and dependent nature of any beneficiary's relationship to its trustee. Given the special status of this relationship, a trustee owes the highest fiduciary duty to the beneficiary, which includes the 'no-conflict rule' and the 'no-profit rule'. The vitally important duty of loyalty is not self-enforcing, and when a breach occurs, the remedy should be in conformity with the duty. The rationale for disgorgement of profits is to deter a breach of the duty of loyalty. Deterrence and prophylaxis are the strongest rational for disgorgement of profits. The quantification of illegally gained profits must reflect the nuances of the fiduciary relationship and the manner in which the duty was breached; the uneasy interplay between causation, remoteness and allowances must be considered. In ordering a disgorgement of profits, a court should factor in the fiduciary's skill and effort in determining the amount of the profits that should be disgorged. Disgorgement of profits is a harsh remedy, and its effectiveness as a deterrent depends on its proportionality to the wrongs. Finally, this paper examines whether it is plausible to apply the disgorgement of profits remedy to a corporation's board of directors. In Anglo-American jurisprudence, a director of a corporation is categorically treated as a status-based fiduciary who owes a fiduciary duty to the corporation. If unauthorized profits are made by a director in breach of his fiduciary duty to the corporation, the director should be required to disgorge the profits just as a disloyal trustee is required to disgorge profits under the Trust Act in South Korea. Under the Korean Commercial Code, remedies exist that are functionally similar to the disgorgement of profits, yet these remedies are fragmented. For instance, directors are prohibited from engaging in a transaction which competes with their corporation's interests without the consent of the board of directors. If a director violates his duty not to compete in the absence of the board's consent, the director may be held liable for monetary damages sustained by the corporation. Additionally, intervention rights are granted to a corporation under the Korean Commercial Code. The corporation may intervene and substitute itself for the director in the third-party transaction. Furthermore, a director may not usurp certain business opportunities available to the corporation without approval by the board of directors. If a director usurps the corporation's business opportunity in contravention of his fiduciary duty, then the director may be held liable for damages based upon a presumption that the ill-gotten gains made by the director are the damages suffered by the corporation. Both intervention rights and the presumption that illegal profits are the corporation's damages are modified forms of the remedy of disgorgement of profits. However, a breach of a general duty of loyalty under the Korean Commercial Code does not stipulate these gain-based remedies. The directors of a corporation are in charge of managing the company's business and thus, their role is similar to that of a trustee. Thus, this paper argues that the remedy of disgorgement of profits should be adopted for breach of a duty of loyalty by a director under the Korean Commercial Code.

본 논문은 신탁법 제43조 제3항의 이득토출책임의 성질을 파악하고 그 반환범위를 획정하기 위해 그 연원이 되는 영미법의 이득토출책임을 살펴보았다. 이는 향후 신 탁법 제43조 제3항에 관한 해석상 지침을 마련하기 위함이다. 2012년 신탁법 전면 개정 시 제43조 제3항에서 이득토출책임을 도입하였지만, 아직 해당 조항이 적극적 으로 활용된 바가 없다. 즉 신탁법에서 이득토출책임을 표면적으로 도입하였지만, 토출할 이익의 구체적인 범위나 법적 성질에 대한 논의는 여전히 부족한 실정이다. 따라서 본 논문에서 영미법상 이득토출책임의 의의 및 그 법적 성질을 검토하여 향 후 이득토출책임 적용 시 길잡이를 마련하고자 한다. 특히 본 논문은 영미법상 이득토출책임의 개념에 사용하는 이득토출책임(Disgorgement) 과 이득정산(Account of profits) 용어의 연원에 초점을 두고 살펴보았으며 이득토출 책임의 근거를 검토하고, 이득토출책임과 관련된 법경제학적 논의를 살펴보았다. 영미법상 이득토출책임의 근거는 철학적 논의, 1차적 귀속원칙 등 다양한 견해가 있지만 신인관계가 지니는 특성에 말미암아 충실의무 위반을 억지하고 예방하여야 하는 근거가 가장 타당하다. 따라서 억지와 예방의 목적을 달성하기 위해 엄격한 이득토출책임, 즉 충실의무 위반으로부터 신인의무자인 수탁자가 취득한 모든 이득을 토출하는 것을 원칙으로 한다. 또한 영미법상 이득토출책임의 법적 성질(물권 혹 은 채권)에 대한 학계의 견해를 살펴보고, 이득토출책임과 구별되는 개념 및 이득토 출책임의 적용범위를 검토하였다. 영국과 미국에서 이득토출책임을 구제수단으로 하는 수탁자의 의무의 범위가 상이 하지만, 본 논문은 충실의무 및 그 하부 룰(sub-rules) 위반에만 이득토출책임을 부 과하는 것이 타당하다고 생각한다. 또한 영미법에서는 이득토출책임을 부과할 신인 의무자의 범주를 명확하게 하고 있지 않지만, 본 논문은 재산에 대한 법적 소유권 자 및 이에 준하는 재량 및 권한을 행사하는 신인의무자로 한정하여야 한다는 견해 이다. 신탁법상 이득토출책임 도입을 바탕으로 하여 회사의 이사 등 신인의무자에 게 이득토출책임을 부과하는 논의가 활발해지기를 기대한다.

Article 43(1) of the Korean Trust Act, enacted in 2012, states: “Where a trustee has violated his duties incurring any loss to the trust property, the settlor, beneficiary, or other trustees where a number of trustees exist, may request the relevant trustee to restore, reinstate the trust property: Provided, that where it is impossible or substantially impracticable to reinstate the trust property, or excessive expenses are incurred in such reinstatement, or where any special ground exists making reinstatement inappropriate, a claim for damages may be raised.” Furthermore, article 43(3) of the Korean Trust Act states that “where a trustee is in breach of a duty of loyalty stipulated in Articles 33 through 37, he should disgorge all the profits acquired by himself or a third party to the trust property, even if no loss has incurred to the trust property.” The disgorgement remedy set out in Article 43(3) provides exceptional relief, preventing the trustee from realizing any gains resulting from a breach of the trustee's fiduciary duty. Yet, this powerful gain-based remedy has not been applied by courts in South Korea. Thus, it is difficult to understand a clear rule for determining disgorgement of profits case. Before the enactment of article 43(3), there have been debates by legal scholars whether any legal basis already existed for disgorgement of profits in South Korea. “Unjust enrichment” and “management of another's affairs(negotiorum gestio)” were traditional remedies available to an injured party, however the legal basis for disgorgement of profits was tenuous. Thus, the legislature found it necessary to specially enact Article 43(3) to be able to impose this remedy. However, no case law has been developed so far and Article 43(3) is often overlooked due to its obscurity. The purpose of this dissertation is to clarify the nature and function of a trustee's fiduciary duty and the disgorgement of profits under Article 43(3) by analyzing the origin and concept of disgorgement of profits and accounts of profits remedies. The vitally important duty of loyalty is not self-enforcing, and when a breach occurs, the remedy should be in conformity with the duty. The philosophical grounds for disgorgement of profits, the corrective justice are tenuous. The rationale for disgorgement of profits is to deter a breach of the duty of loyalty. Deterrence and prophylaxis are the strongest rational for disgorgement of profits. The quantification of illegally gained profits must reflect the nuances of the fiduciary relationship and the manner in which the duty was breached; the uneasy interplay between causation, remoteness and allowances must be considered. In ordering a disgorgement of profits, a court should factor in the fiduciary's skill and effort in determining the amount of the profits that should be disgorged. Disgorgement of profits is a harsh remedy, and its effectiveness as a deterrent depends on its proportionality to the wrongs. This paper also examines whether it is plausible to apply the disgorgement of profits remedy to a corporation's board of directors. In Anglo-American jurisprudence, a director of a corporation is categorically treated as a status-based fiduciary who owes a fiduciary duty to the corporation. If unauthorized profits are made by a director in breach of his fiduciary duty to the corporation, the director should be required to disgorge the profits just as a disloyal trustee is required to disgorge profits under the Trust Act in South Korea.

본 논문은 신탁법 제43조 제3항의 이득토출책임의 성격을 파악하고 그 반환범위 를 획정하기 위해 그 연원인 영미법의 이득토출책임을 살펴보았다. 이는 향후 신탁 법 제43조 제3항에 관한 해석상 지침을 마련하기 위함이다. 2012년 신탁법 전면개 정 시 제43조 제3항에서 이득토출책임을 도입하였지만, 아직 해당 조항이 적극적으 로 활용된 바가 없다. 즉 신탁법에서 이득토출책임을 표면적으로 도입하였지만, 토 출할 이익의 구체적인 범위나 법적 성격에 대한 논의는 여전히 부족한 실정이다. 따라서 본 논문에서 영미법상 이득토출책임의 연원 및 그 개념을 검토하여 향후 신 탁법상 이득토출책임 적용에 길잡이를 마련하고자 한다. 특히 본 논문은 영미법상 이득토출책임의 개념에 사용하는 Disgorgement와 Account of profits 용어의 연원에 초점을 두고 살펴보았으며, 이득토출책임의 근거 를 검토하고, 이득토출책임과 관련된 법경제학적인 논의를 살펴보았다. 또한 영미 법상 이득토출책임의 법적 성격(물권적 혹은 채권적 성격)에 대한 학계의 견해를 살 펴보고, 이득토출책임과 구별되는 개념 및 이득토출책임의 적용범위를 검토하였다. 영국과 미국에서 이득토출책임을 구제수단으로 하는 수탁자의 의무의 범위가 상이 하지만, 본 논문은 충실의무 및 하부 룰(sub-rules) 위반에만 이득토출책임을 부과하 는 것이 보다 타당하다고 생각한다. 또한 영미법에서는 이득토출책임을 부과할 신 인의무자의 범주를 명확하게 하고 있지 않지만, 본 논문은 재산에 대한 법적 소유 권자 및 이에 준하는 재량 및 권한을 행사하는 신인의무자로 한정하여야 한다고 생 각한다. 영미법상 이득토출책임은 억지와 예방의 목적을 달성하기 위해 엄격한 이득토출 책임, 즉 충실의무 위반으로부터 신인의무자인 수탁자가 취득한 모든 이득을 토출 하는 것을 원칙으로 한다. 하지만 구체적인 판례를 검토해보면. 이득토출책임 금액 은 개별 사실관계에 크게 의존하고 있으며 수탁자에게 가혹한 책임이 되는 것을 방 지하기 위하여 인과관계, 공제 등을 적용하여 그 엄격성을 일부 완화하고 있음을 확인할 수 있다.

Article 43(1) of the Korean Trust Act, enacted in 2012, states: "Where a trustee has violated his duties incurring any loss to the trust property, the settlor, beneficiary, or other trustees where a number of trustees exist, may request the relevant trustee to restore, reinstate the trust property: Provided, that where it is impossible or substantially impracticable to reinstate the trust property, or excessive expenses are incurred in such reinstatement, or where any special ground exists making reinstatement inappropriate, a claim for damages may be raised."Furthermore, article 43(3) of the Korean Trust Act states that "where a trustee is in breach of a duty of loyalty stipulated in Articles 33 through 37, he should disgorge all the profits acquired by himself or a third party to the trust property, even if no loss has incurred to the trust property." The disgorgement remedy set out in Article 43(3) provides exceptional relief, preventing the trustee from realizing any gains resulting from a breach of the trustee's fiduciary duty. Yet, this powerful gain-based remedy has not been applied by courts in South Korea. Thus, it is difficult to understand a clear rule for determining disgorgement of profits case. Before the enactment of article 43(3), there have been debates by legal scholars whether any legal basis already existed for disgorgement of profits in South Korea. "Unjust enrichment" and "management of another's affairs(negotiorum gestio)" were traditional remedies available to an injured party, however the legal basis for disgorgement of profits was tenuous. Thus, the legislature found it necessary to specially enact Article 43(3) to be able to impose this remedy. However, no case law has been developed so far and Article 43(3) is often overlooked due to its obscurity. The purpose of this dissertation is to clarify the nature and function of a trustee's fiduciary duty and the disgorgement of profits under Article 43(3) by analyzing the origin and concept of disgorgement of profits and accounts of profits remedies. The vitally important duty of loyalty is not self-enforcing, and when a breach occurs, the remedy should be in conformity with the duty. The philosophical grounds for disgorgement of profits, the corrective justice are tenuous. The rationale for disgorgement of profits is to deter a breach of the duty of loyalty. Deterrence and prophylaxis are the strongest rational for disgorgement of profits. The quantification of illegally gained profits must reflect the nuances of the fiduciary relationship and the manner in which the duty was breached; the uneasy interplay between causation, remoteness and allowances must be considered. In ordering a disgorgement of profits, a court should factor in the fiduciary's skill and effort in determining the amount of the profits that should be disgorged. Disgorgement of profits is a harsh remedy, and its effectiveness as a deterrent depends on its proportionality to the wrongs. This paper also examines whether it is plausible to apply the disgorgement of profits remedy to a corporation's board of directors. In Anglo-American jurisprudence, a director of a corporation is categorically treated as a status-based fiduciary who owes a fiduciary duty to the corporation. If unauthorized profits are made by a director in breach of his fiduciary duty to the corporation, the director should be required to disgorge the profits just as a disloyal trustee is required to disgorge profits under the Trust Act in South Korea.

교육세는 1982년 학교교육의 정상화를 기하는데 필요한 재원을 확보하기 위하여 신설되었고 1986년까지 5년간 한시적인 목적세로 운영하도록 하되 그 세수는 교육기반의 확충을 위한 학교시설과 교원처우개선에 우선적으로 충당하도록 제정되었으나 5년을 지나 현재까지도 폐지되지 않고 있다. 신설 당시 교육세는 과세주체가 중앙정부인 국세로서 부가세였으며 한시적인 성격을 가진 임시세였고 사용 목적은 학교시설과 교원처우개선의 두 영역으로 국한되어 있었다. 그러나 최근 본래의 목적에서 벗어난 과세원칙이현재 국세청과 금융 ․ 보험업자의 교육세와 관련된 논쟁이 되고 있다. 대법원은 최근 변액보험의 특별계정이 금융보험업자의 수익금액인지 여부와 관련된 의미 있는 판결을 선고하였다(이하 ‘대상판결’이라 한다). 우선, 대상판결은 순자산을 증가시키는 거래로 인하여 발생하는 수익금액으로서 교육세법 시행령 제4조 제1항에 해당하는 금융, 보험업자의 수익금액은 위 시행령 제4조 제2항에 해당하지 않는 이상 교육세 과세표준에산입되어야 한다고 판시하였다. 대상판결은 금융, 보험업자의 수익금액의범위를 명확히 하였다는 점에서 의미가 있다. 다음으로 대상판결은 변액보험의 특별계정과 관련된 보험료와 운용수익이 실질적으로 보험업자에게 귀속된다고 보았다. 보험계약에 기한 보험료가 납부된 후 보험사고의 발생 등보험계약상의 보험금 지급요건을 충족한 경우에 비로소 보험금으로 반환되며, 최저보장금액의 한도 내에서는 보험실적이 악화되어 손실이 발생하더라도 최저보장금액을 받을 수 있게 된다는 측면에서 대상판결은 타당하다. 다음으로, 대상판결은 관련법에 의하면 변액보험 특별계정은 투자신탁으로 간주되지만 조세법적으로도 투자신탁과 동일하게 취급할 필요는 없다고 보았다. 신탁재산에 대한 과세상 취급은 원칙적으로 민사적 권리관계에따라야 하고, 이와 달리 취급하기 위해서는 별도의 법령상 근거가 필요하다는 측면에서 타당하다. 교육세는 목적세임에도 과세대상에 금융·보험업자를 납세의무자로 규정하여 금융·보험업자가 교육세와 직접적인 관련이 있는지 불분명하여 수익자부담원칙이 존재하지 않는다는 점에서 비판을 받고 있다. 이러한 비판으로대표적인 목적세인 교육세의 위헌 논란까지 불거지고 있다. 대상 판결은 결론에 있어서는 타당하지만, 위와 같은 교육세에 대한 비판론적인 관점에서는 그 수익금액의 범위를 해석함에 있어서는 조심스러운 접근이 필요하다.

Educational tax had been established in 1982 in the form of earmarked tax for five years to obtain finances required to stabilize the educational system especially to improve the rights for teachers and the conditions of school facilities. The educational tax that was meant to be valid only for five years, however, still remains today. When the educational tax was first introduced, it was considered a national tax as well as a surtax that was meant to be a contingency tax, in which purpose of the usage was limited within the realm of improving school facilities and rights for teachers. Nonetheless, a policy on educational tax which had lost its initial purpose has recently become an issue between National Tax Service and finance, insurance company. The Supreme Court recently has ruled decision related to whether special account of variable life insurance are to be included and acknowledged as the revenue of the finance, insurance company('decision' below). The decision first acknowledged this revenue is a transaction that increases net assets, and any revenues of financial and insurance companies that are categorized by the Section 4 Clause 1 of the Educational Tax Law that are also excluded from Section 4 Clause 2 of the Educational Tax Law are to be taxed according to the rates of the Educational Tax Law. This decision is significant in that it clearly defines the boundaries of the revenues of financial and insurance companies. The decision also concluded that the insurances fees and operation revenues related to special account of variable life insurance were to be acknowledged as activities of the insurance companies. When the insurance product payout conditions are fulfilled such as an event of an accident covered by insurance after the term insurance payment has been paid during the insurance contract duration etc., in this case insurance payouts are made, and even when losses occur due to underperforming insurance products within the limits of the minimum guaranteed amounts, this decision is appropriate because it supports the payment of the minimum guaranteed amounts. Next, the decision concluded that while special account of variable life insurance were considered an investment trust according to related laws, the decision also viewed that special account of variable life insurance were not required to be treated according to the identical taxation laws of investment trust. The handling of taxation of investment trust, as a rule, must follow the civil laws pertaining to the trust, and this decision is appropriate in that it is necessary for additional legal basis in order to handle these cases differently. Criticism lies in the fact that a finance, insurance company is held responsible for the educational tax even though there exists no clear guideline as to whether the finance, insurance company has the responsibility to pay the educational tax. Because such criticism has resulted in a controversy over unconstitutionality about the educational tax, which is one of a major earmarked tax. Although the decision is valid in terms of the conclusion, critics may argue that a careful approach is needed for the analysis of profits range.