수도시설 분담금의 법적 성격 및 지방자치법상 주민의 개념

Abstract

Regardless of whether the main office or head office is located, for the past several decades, waterworks facility contributions have been assessed and collected based on the 'Water Supply Construction Ordinance’ for corporations that have applied for water supply works. So far, there has been no direct problem in the precedents about what the legal nature of the above facility contribution is, and what the requirement is for residents to be a resident if the basis legal regulation is Article 139 of the Local Autonomy Act. Then, while carrying out a large-scale development project such as a housing site development project, the project implementer installed water facilities for the project district at the expense in accordance with Article 71 of the Water Supply Act. A number of lawsuits were filed and the conclusions of the lower courts on individual issues were mixed. In order to guarantee the public's legal predictability and legal stability, it is desirable that the laws and regulations that are the basis for infringing dispositions be clearly stipulated so that their requirements, procedures, and effects, etc., leave no room for other interpretation. However, in practice, the contents of laws themselves are not clear due to negligence in legislation, problems in legislative technology, and changes in social environment. In this case, it is very difficult to decide whether to prioritize the text of the law and faithfully judge the principle of prohibition of extended interpretation or inferential interpretation, or to pursue specific validity and realization of the public interest by carrying out a teleological interpretation in consideration of the legislative purpose, etc. In particular, it seems to be the biggest challenge in administrative litigation. Although the position of the Supreme Court has been clarified in relation to the interpretation of the concept of residents in Article 138 of the Local Autonomy Act through the subject judgment and related case judgments, it will continue to be difficult to determine which one is between the interpretation faithful to the text and the teleological interpretation, and securing legal stability and realizing the public interest. There will continue to be cases in which priority will be given, and in such cases, it is expected that the target judgment will be a judgment that can be referred to. In this article, we reviewed the legal grounds for waterworks contributions, for which judicial decisions were made in the subject judgments, and the grounds and validity of the subject judgment judgments regarding the concept of 'residents', who are obligated to pay the contributions under Article 138 of the former Local Autonomy Act. In particular, in relation to the expansion of the concept of 'resident' to the case where a corporation has a 'business office' under the Local Tax Act, not only the case where the corporation has its main office or head office in the local government, It was analyzed in terms of acceptance requirements and their limitations.