Seoul, Seocho-gu “violation of legal procedures” … ‘Property tax reduction dispute’ eventually reaches Supreme Court

The Seoul Metropolitan Government applied for a temporary injunction to the Supreme Court for the ‘partial amendment of the Salvation Tax Ordinance’ in Seocho-gu, which decided to reduce the property tax by 50% for ‘a home and a owner ‘among homeowners with an official price of 900 million won or less. “We do not oppose Seocho-gu’s intention to reduce property taxes in accordance with the realization of public prices, but there are flaws in the legal procedures such as the establishment of a new standard section of taxation that is not in the local tax law. The Seoul Metropolitan Government requested Seocho-gu’s ‘consideration’, but Seocho-gu ignored this and enacted the ordinance unilaterally.

Seoul Mayor Seo Jeong-hyup, Acting Mayor of Seoul, participates in the audit of the state administration of the National Land, Infrastructure and Transportation Commission of the National Assembly that took place at Seoul City Hall on the morning of 20 to answer questions from legislators. Yunhap news.

The Seoul Metropolitan Government announced on the 30th that “Seocho-gu filed a lawsuit against the ordinance to amend Seocho-gu’s salvation on the 23rd. A Seoul city official said,” Instead of opposing the ultimate purpose of what Seocho-gu is doing, there are parts of Seocho-gu’s ordinance that are outside the scope of higher law, “he said.

There are two major procedural flaws mentioned by the city of Seoul. The first is that the Seocho-gu ordinance violates tax legalism. The key to fiscal legalism is that the imposition and collection of taxes must be in accordance with the laws enacted by the National Assembly. The tax standard for general housing stipulated in the current local tax law is divided into ▶ 60 million won ▶ 60 million to 150 million won ▶ 150 million to 300 million won ▶ more than 300 million won. This means that it conflicts with higher law.

The issue of reducing property taxes in Seoul and Seocho-gu was left to the judgment of the Supreme Court. The image is a view of the Supreme Court located in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Central photo.

A Seoul city official said that the party and the government are implementing a property tax reduction policy with the same content as the Seocho-gu ordinances, and said: “The government is trying to adjust the tax burden on the basis of fiscal legalism to adjust the excessively increasing tax burden in the process of realizing the published price. “Seocho-gu is creating a new tax section that is not in the law, so it is different in form from the government plan,” he said. “If the Seocho-gu ordinance is found to be illegal, the procedural costs, such as the reimbursement of the reimbursed property tax, are high, which forms the basis of the request for stay of execution.”

The Seoul Metropolitan Government also cited the reason for the complaint that Seocho-gu ignored this and enacted the ordinance on the 23rd despite the request for resentment from the city of Seoul on the 7th. The proposal concerns reexamination and the resolution of a matter to be resolved by the city council. A Seoul official said: “According to Article 172, Paragraph 1 of the Local Self-Government Law, if the Mayor / Do Governor requests a reconsideration, the head of the local government who received the reconsideration request must request a reconsideration from the council. local within 20 days after the date of receipt of the decision Although it is a mandatory regulation, Seocho-gu violated it, ”he explained.

Eunhee Cho, director of Seocho-gu. Central photo.

Seocho-gu also refuted this. A Seocho-gu official drew a line and said: “We did not set a new standard for taxes, we only selected the targets for reducing property taxes.” “First of all, there is no problem because it is based on Article 111, Paragraph 3 of the Local Tax Law, which states that ‘the standard tax rate can be added to or subtracted from the existing 50% range as prescribed by ordinance of the local government.

Seocho-gu also said, “When the Ministry of Health and Welfare revoked the Seoul Youth Activity Support Project (Youth Subsidy) in 2016, the Seoul Metropolitan Government instead of ‘(Ministry of Welfare) violated the Law of Local Autonomy and abused discretionary rights’. He said: “In light of past cases that emphasized autonomous administration and decentralization, this demand does not match the tone of the Seoul Metropolitan Government.” Furthermore, he argued, “Before the enactment of the ordinance, I requested an interview with the mayor of Seoul, Mayor Seo Jeong-hyup, but this was also rejected and the possibility of discussion was low.”

Seocho-gu also refuted the Seoul City’s claim that it violated the Local Self-Government Law by failing to comply with the request. A Seocho-gu official said: “Regarding Article 172 of the Local Self-Government Law, ‘If the head of the local government who received the reconsideration order does not request a reconsideration (from the city council), it is possible to file a complaint and a decision to stay the execution ‘. It’s a hint that it may not be. “He also explained,” It is not appropriate for the government and the ruling party to consistently resist only the city of Seoul while pursuing policies with the same purpose. ”

Reporter Heo Jeong-won [email protected]