[1] Whether Article 9 of the Local Tax Act, which provides that the local government shall obtain the permission of the Minister of Home Affairs when establishing the Ordinance for Exemption from Taxation, violates Article 117 (1) and Article 118 of the Constitution (negative)

[2] The validity of the municipal ordinance concerning local tax exemption, etc. enacted by the local government without the permission of the Minister of Home Affairs (unlawful)

[1] The purport of Article 9 of the Local Tax Act, where a local government intends to impose tax exemption, unequal taxation, or partial taxation, is to obtain permission from the Minister of Home Affairs. It is understood that the above provision is a system established to establish a healthy local tax system by controlling and coordinating it through the prior permission system only for the enactment of ordinances on certain matters such as exemption from taxation by the local government through a nationwide control and coordination. Accordingly, it is understood that the above provision violates the Constitution Article 117(1) and Article 18(1)3 of the Local Tax Act, which provides for the legislative authority of the local government, and Article 15(1) of the Local Tax Act, and Article 15(1)3 of the Local Tax Act, and Article 15(1) of the Local Tax Act, and Article 9 of the Local Tax Act, which provides for the legislative authority of the local government, which infringes on the essential contents of the local government's legislative authority.

[2] According to the provisions of Article 15 of the Local Autonomy Act, a local government may enact a municipal ordinance concerning its affairs within the scope of statutes. Thus, if a local government enacted a municipal ordinance concerning local tax exemption without the permission of the Minister of Home Affairs, it shall not be effective due to its violation of Article 15 of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 9 of the Local Tax Act.

[1] Articles 117(1) and 118 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 9 of the Local Tax Act; Articles 9 and 35(1)1 of the Local Autonomy Act / [2] Article 15 of the Local Autonomy Act; Article 9 of the Local Tax Act

Incheon Metropolitan City Mayor (Law Firm Dong-dong Law Office, Attorneys Lee Jin-woo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Incheon Metropolitan City Council (Attorney Yoon Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 14, 1996

A re-resolution on the draft of the Incheon Metropolitan City City Tax Reduction and Exemption Ordinance, which was made by the defendant on February 9, 1996, has no effect. Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 without dispute over establishment, the defendant decided on December 27, 1995 at the plenary session of 10th regular session, and transferred it to the plaintiff on the 29th of the same month. On January 4, 1996, the plaintiff requested the Minister of Home Affairs for reconsideration on the 18th of the same month. The Minister of Home Affairs, on February 1 of the same year, provided that the above amendment Ordinance Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5's evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5's evidence Nos. 1, 395, and the amendment Ordinance No. 1000, Dec. 27, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the amendment Ordinance No. 1000, Jan. 4, 1996).

2. Article 7 of the Local Tax Act provides that a local government may be exempted from taxation if it is deemed improper for reasons of public interest, etc. (paragraph (1)); Article 8 provides that a local government may impose tax on an unequal basis if necessary for reasons of public interest, etc. (paragraph (2)); Article 8 provides that a local government may impose tax only on an unequal basis or may impose tax on a part of it; Article 7 and Article 8 provides that if the local government intends to impose tax exemption or unequal taxation or partial taxation under the provisions of Article 9 of the Local Tax Act, it shall be prescribed by the Ordinance of the local government concerned with the permission of the Minister of Home Affairs; Article 9 of the Local Tax Act provides that a local government may impose tax exemption or unequal taxation or partial taxation (hereinafter referred to as "taxation exemption, etc."); Article 1 of the Local Tax Act provides that if it intends to obtain permission from the Minister of Home Affairs for the purpose of evading national tax burden due to improper abuse of the local tax exemption system, such as exemption from taxation, etc.; Article 8 provides that local government’s exemption from taxation may bring about losses from taxation due to the original purpose of local government.

On the other hand, according to the provisions of Article 15 of the Local Autonomy Act, local governments may enact municipal ordinances concerning their affairs within the scope of statutes, so if local governments enact municipal ordinances concerning exemption from local tax without the permission of the Minister of Home Affairs, they shall be deemed to have no effect due to the violation of Article 15 of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 9 of the Local Tax Act.

3. In light of the facts recognized above, the defendant is exempted from taxation of local taxes with the purport of exempting the resident tax to be imposed on the land of the airport site among the income tax to be generated by transferring the land, etc. to the New Airport Construction Corporation according to the construction of the new airport in the Seoul Metropolitan area without the permission of the Minister of Home Affairs, and the resident tax to be imposed on the land owners in the adjacent support complex. The above amendment bill violates Article 9 of the Local Tax Act by failing to obtain the permission of the Minister of Home Affairs, and it is invalid since it violated Article 9 of the Local Tax Act without the permission of the Minister of Home Affairs.

4. Thus, since the draft amendment of the Ordinance on the Amendment of this case, which the defendant re-decided, is in violation of the law and becomes invalid, it is not necessary to proceed further to determine the remaining arguments of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)