Whether the initial demand for the payment of enforcement fines under the Building Act constitutes an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation (affirmative)

According to the provisions of Article 69-2(6) of the former Building Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8974, Mar. 21, 2008); Articles 28 and 82 of the Local Tax Act; and Article 23 of the National Tax Collection Act, when a person subject to a disposition of imposition of a non-performance penalty fails to pay the non-performance penalty within the specified period, he/she may urge the person to pay the non-performance penalty. If the person fails to pay the non-performance penalty within the specified period, he/she may collect the non-performance penalty in accordance with the procedure for arrears. In such cases, the first demand for the payment

Article 69-2(6) of the former Building Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8974 of March 21, 2008) (see current Article 80(6)), Articles 28 and 82 of the Local Tax Act, Article 23 of the National Tax Collection Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 17 others (Law Firm Gong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Magsung Co., Ltd.

Head of the Geum-gu Busan Metropolitan Government

Busan High Court Decision 2008Nu4664 decided July 17, 2009

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

ex officio deemed.

According to Article 69-2 (6) of the former Building Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8974 of Mar. 21, 2008), Article 28, Article 82 of the Local Tax Act, and Article 23 of the National Tax Collection Act, if a person subject to a disposition of imposition of a non-performance penalty fails to pay the non-performance penalty within the specified period, he/she may urge the person to pay the non-performance penalty, and if he/she fails to pay the non-performance penalty within the specified period, he/she may collect the non-performance penalty in accordance with the procedure for arrears. In this case, the first demand for the payment of the non-performance penalty can be an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal as a collection disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1199, Jul.

Nevertheless, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which rejected the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case on the ground that the initial demand for the payment of enforcement fines is not an administrative disposition. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the initial demand for the payment of enforcement fines, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. In this regard, the court below

Therefore, without examining the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)