Whether an investor under Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes or Article 22 of the Local Tax Act is a secondary obligor for development charges.

Article 6 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act provides that the person liable for payment of development charges shall be the project implementer under Article 5 (1) of the same Act and does not provide that Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes or Article 22 of the Local Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the second liability for payment of the investors. Article 19 (1) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act provides that “If a person liable for payment of development charges fails to pay the development charges and additional dues in full by the designated deadline after receiving a demand notice, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may collect them in the same manner as delinquent national taxes are collected in accordance with the provisions on delinquent taxes in the National Tax Collection Act.” The provision of Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes or Article 22 of the Local Tax Act provides that “The provisions of Article 39 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act or Article 22 of the Local Tax Act shall not apply mutatis mutandis to the obligation for payment of the development charges under Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Article 6 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act, Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 22 of the Local Tax Act

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellant] The Head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of the Republic of Korea and one other, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu12126 delivered on November 6, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

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

Article 6 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that the person liable for payment of the development charges under the Act shall be the project implementer under Article 5 (1) of the Act, and the Act does not provide that Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes or Article 22 of the Local Tax Act that provides for the secondary tax liability of investors shall apply mutatis mutandis, and Article 19 (1) of the Act provides that "the Minister of Construction and Transportation may collect the development charges by enforcing the Act in the same manner as delinquent national taxes are collected in cases where the person liable for payment of the development charges fails to pay the development charges and additional dues by the designated deadline after receiving a demand notice," and Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes or Article 22 of the Local Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") shall apply mutatis mutandis to the obligation for payment of the development charges under the Act. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes or Article 22 of the Local Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the obligation for payment of the development charges.

The court below's decision to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the invalidation of the second taxpayer and administrative disposition like the theory of lawsuit.

The provisions of Article 1 of the National Tax Collection Act, etc. cited by the theory of the lawsuit, do not serve as a basis to regard Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 22 of the Local Tax Act to apply mutatis mutandis to the obligation to pay development charges under the Act.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)