The purport of Article 37 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Water Supply Ordinance

In light of the purport of the Local Tax Act concerning repayment interest (Articles 46 and 47) and various provisions concerning water rate, etc. (Articles 23 and 37) of the Seoul Metropolitan Government's water supply municipal ordinance, Article 37 of the same water supply municipal ordinance should be amended to apply mutatis mutandis not only the collection of water rate and its additional dues, but also the repayment interest, etc. of erroneous or erroneous payments incidental to the collection.

Article 46 of the Local Tax Act and Article 37 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Water Supply.

Treatment Co., Ltd. and 1 other plaintiffs, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee, Seogjin, Seoh-ho et al.

Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na2931 delivered on January 27, 1987

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

We examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in collecting the water rate and its additional dues under Article 37 of the Water Supply Ordinance, and all other dues, except as otherwise provided for in this Ordinance, the court below provides that if a person liable for tax payment or person liable for special collection erroneously pays the money collectible by a local self-government organization that has paid or paid at the time of the enforcement of Article 46 of the Local Tax Act, the amount overpaid or erroneously paid shall be added to the amount calculated according to the interest rate as determined by the Presidential Decree in consideration of the deposit interest rate of the financial institution from the date as provided for in Article 47 to the date of notifying the payment of the overpaid or erroneously paid money or the date of appropriating the money due under Article 45 (1). The above provision provides that the interest rate of overpaid or erroneously paid money under Article 46 of the same Act shall be 3/10,000 per day under Article 39 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act which was enforced at the time of the enforcement of this Ordinance shall not apply mutatis mutandis to the payment of the money overpaid or erroneously paid by the defendant.

However, in light of the purport of the above provisions concerning repayment interest of the Local Tax Act and various provisions concerning the water rate under the Water Supply Ordinance of the defendant city, Article 37 of the same Water Supply Ordinance shall be amended to the effect that the provisions of the Local Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis not only to the collection of water rate, additional dues, fees, fines for negligence, and all other charges, but also to the repayment interest of erroneous or erroneous payments incidental to the collection. Ultimately, the court below's other opinion that provided that the court below did not have the obligation to pay repayment interest under the Local Tax Act with respect to the repayment interest of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the interpretation of the Water Supply Ordinance of the defendant city and did not reach the conclusion of the judgment, and this constitutes the ground for reversal under Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the plaintiffs among the judgment below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)