A corporation with a place of business as a liable resident

1. 01Question

   May a corporation that had its head office in another city but carried on a construction business in Jinju over several years, with human and physical equipment, be a ‘resident’ liable for a water facility contribution under Article 138 of the Local Autonomy Act, although it had no head office or principal office in Jinju when the levy was imposed?

2. 02Holding

   Yes. The Local Autonomy Act uses the term ‘resident’ in many provisions and contains no single definition of it, so whether a natural person or a corporation is a resident must be judged separately for each system, by reference to its purpose and characteristics and to the wording, content and structure of the related provisions. The ‘resident’ liable under Article 138 is in principle the same as the ‘resident’ liable for the uniform share of the resident tax, save that it is limited to those who received a special benefit from the installation of the local government's property or public facility, so a corporation that keeps a ‘place of business’ there falls within it even without a head office or principal office there. Where the conditions for the levy set by an ordinance made under Article 138 are met, the corporation must pay the contribution unless special circumstances such as a double imposition of charges exist.

   Summary of the holding, verbatim

   어떤 법인이 해당 지방자치단체에서 인적·물적 설비를 갖추고 계속적으로 사업을 영위하면서 해당 지방자치단체의 재산 또는 공공시설의 설치로 특히 이익을 받는 경우에는 지방자치법 제138조에 따른 분담금 납부의무자가 될 수 있다.

   Unofficial English translation

   Where a corporation (juristic person) has human and material facilities in the relevant local government and continuously carries on business there, and receives particular benefit from the installation of the property or public facilities of the relevant local government, it may become a person obligated to pay the apportionment under Article 138 of the Local Autonomy Act.

3. 03Disposition

   Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision

   원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.

   Unofficial English translation

   The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.

4. 04Form of the test

   Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision

   자연인이든 법인이든 누군가가 지방자치법상 주민에 해당하는지는 개별 제도별로 제도의 목적과 특성, 지방자치법뿐만 아니라 관계 법령에 산재해 있는 관련 규정들의 문언, 내용과 체계 등을 고려하여 개별적으로 판단할 수밖에 없다.

   Unofficial English translation

   Whether a natural person or a corporation (juristic person) falls within the meaning of a resident under the Local Autonomy Act can only be determined individually for each system, in consideration of the purpose and characteristics of the respective system and the wording, content, and structure of the relevant provisions scattered not only throughout the Local Autonomy Act but also throughout related statutes and regulations.

5. 05Factors

   • 해당 지방자치단체에서 인적·물적 설비를 갖추고 계속적으로 사업을 영위하면서
   • 해당 지방자치단체의 재산 또는 공공시설의 설치로 특히 이익을 받는 경우에는
   • 지방자치법 제138조에 따른 분담금 납부의무자인 ‘주민’은 균등분 주민세의 납부의무자인 ‘주민’과 기본적으로 동일하되
   • 지방자치법 제138조에 따른 분담금 제도의 취지와 균등분 주민세 제도와의 관계 등을 고려하면
   • 부담금 이중부과 등과 같은 특별한 사정이 없는 한

   Unofficial English translation

   • has human and material facilities in the relevant local government and continuously carries on business there,

   • where it receives particular benefit from the installation of the property or public facilities of the relevant local government,

   • the ‘resident’ who is a person obligated to pay the apportionment under Article 138 of the Local Autonomy Act is basically the same as the ‘resident’ who is a person obligated to pay the uniform resident tax, but

   • considering the purpose of the apportionment system under Article 138 of the Local Autonomy Act and its relationship with the uniform resident tax system, and the like,

   • absent special circumstances such as double imposition of charges,

6. 06Relation to precedent

   States a new standard Read from the decision

   지방자치법에 ‘주민’의 개념을 구체적으로 정의하는 규정이 없는데, 그 입법 목적, 요건과 효과를 달리하는 다양한 제도들이 포함되어 있는 점을 고려하면, 지방자치법이 단일한 주민 개념을 전제하고 있는 것으로 보기 어렵다.

   Unofficial English translation

   In light of the fact that the Local Autonomy Act contains no provision that specifically defines the concept of a ‘resident,’ and that it encompasses various systems whose legislative purposes, requirements, and effects differ, it is difficult to regard the Local Autonomy Act as being premised on a single concept of a resident.

   Decisions referred to

   해당 본문 참조

7. 07Burden of proof

   Not addressed Not in the decision

8. 08Open question and revisit condition

   To what extent must the levy conditions set by an ordinance made under Article 138 match the ‘special benefit’ requirement of the parent Act for the contribution to be imposed lawfully?

   The remand judgment of the Busan High Court, which must now hear and decide the case again, will show how the ability to receive water and the place of business are proved on this record. Any amendment to Article 138 of the Local Autonomy Act or to the provisions on the resident tax in the Local Tax Act would also require this entry to be read again.

Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.

Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.