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

Article 37 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Water Supply Ordinance stipulates that the collection of local taxes shall apply only to the collection of local taxes, except as otherwise provided for in the same Ordinance, with respect to water rates, additional dues, fees, fines for negligence, and all other charges under the same Ordinance. Therefore, Article 22 of the Local Tax Act, which prescribes the secondary tax liability, shall not apply mutatis mutandis.

Article 22 of the Local Tax Act and Article 37 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Water Supply

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu374 Delivered on December 14, 1982

Plaintiff

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu152, 82Gu370 decided August 17, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to Articles 22 and 27(1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Imposition of Fees for Temporary Supply, it is evident that the imposition of estimated fees for temporary supply can only be made against the water-supply users. Article 401(1) of the Commercial Act is merely a provision on the liability for damages when a director neglects his duties in bad faith or due to gross negligence, and Article 37 of the above Ordinance provides that the Local Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis only to the collection of fees for the use of the pre-paid water in the same manner as the local tax is collected, and Article 22 of the Local Tax Act, which provides for the secondary tax liability, is not applicable mutatis mutandis to the collection of the pre-paid water-supply fees for the first time, and Article 22 of the Local Tax Act, which provides for the second tax liability, is unreasonable in light of the pre-paid interpretation of the above provision, or the general principles on the enactment of ordinances under Article 7 of the Local Tax Act, as determined by the court below, to the effect that the defendant's construction of new water-supply users in this case is not unlawful.

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 Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)