(a) If a company is a temporary water supply applicant, whether it imposes estimated amount of temporary water supply charges on its executive officers (negative);

(b) Whether Article 22 of the Local Tax Act applies mutatis mutandis to the collection of water rates (negative)

C. Whether the company's imposition of temporary water supply charges on directors based on Article 401 of the Commercial Act is appropriate (negative)

A. According to Article 27 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Water Supply Ordinance and Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Ordinance, it is reasonable to interpret that the imposition of the estimated amount of temporary water supply usage fees can only be made for the applicant. Therefore, if the company is the applicant for temporary water supply, it shall not be imposed

B. Article 37 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Water Supply Ordinance provides that the collection of all impositions such as water rates under the same Ordinance shall be made in the same manner as the collection of local taxes, but in light of the purport of the provision or the limits of the ordinance, etc., the above "collection" means only the collection procedure of consultation, so Article 22 of the Local Tax Act does not apply or apply mutatis mutandis to water rates.

C. Article 401 of the Commercial Act provides for the liability of directors to compensate for damages to a third party, and it cannot be a ground for imposition of water supply usage fees on the executive officers of the company.

(a) Article 27 (b) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Water Supply; Article 37 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Water Supply; Article 401 of the Commercial Act; Article 27 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Water Supply;

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu374 Delivered on December 14, 1982

Plaintiff

Attorney Kim Chang-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu91 delivered on October 28, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) According to Article 27 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Water Supply Ordinance, the Mayor may recognize the scheduled amount of use at the time of the application for the temporary water supply and settle the scheduled amount of use at any time or after the completion of the water supply. According to Article 15(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the above Water Supply Ordinance, the temporary water supply user fee shall be adjusted based on the estimated amount of use for the temporary water supply and the actual amount of use by the transferee after the use. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the estimated amount of the temporary water supply user fee can be imposed only on the water applicant.In addition to the collection of the water charge under this Ordinance and its additional charges, the above provisions of the Local Tax Act apply mutatis mutandis to the collection of local tax other than those provided for in this Ordinance, in light of the purport of the Local Tax Act, the provisions of the Local Tax Act apply mutatis mutandis only to the collection procedure of consultation, and the provisions of Article 20 to the director of the Local Tax Act apply mutatis mutandis to the case of neglect of the duty of the company in bad faith or negligence.

(2) The court below acknowledged the fact that the application for temporary supply of this case is the non-party Ildo Development Co., Ltd., and the defendant was well aware of it, and therefore the above company's failure to pay the water supply fee, the above temporary supply is continued by the application of the officers of the above company who are jointly responsible for business operation under the law, and recognized the fact that the above temporary supply of this case was imposed on the plaintiff who is a stockholder and director of the above company, and in the same purport, the above disposition of this case ordered the advance payment of the estimated amount of the temporary supply fee to the non-party who is not the applicant for temporary supply without any legal basis, and judged that the defect was a disposition which becomes null and void as it is significant and obvious. The above determination of

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young