Park Yujin, Seoul City Council Member, Urges to Stop False Claims About the 'TBS Tax Support Suspension Ordinance'

Seoul City Council People Power Party Floor Leader Choi Hojung and Members Issue Statement on 16th Expressing Strong Regret over False Claims

[Asia Economy Reporter Jong-il Park] The group of People Power Party members of the Seoul Metropolitan Council (floor leader Choi Ho-jung) issued a statement on the 16th expressing strong regret over false claims made by Democratic Party member Park Yoo-jin during the city administration questioning held the previous day regarding the ‘Ordinance to Repeal the Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of the Media Foundation tbs (tbs)’, jointly proposed by all People Power Party members, also known as the ‘TBS Tax Support Suspension Ordinance’.

The statement asserted, "We urge Representative Park to adhere to the facts. First, Park criticized that the ‘TBS Tax Support Suspension Ordinance’ consists of only three chapters. We respond that the repeal-related legislation is necessarily brief due to its nature."

It further noted that during President Kim Dae-jung’s administration in 1999, a bill to abolish the National Tax College was proposed and passed by the National Assembly. The main text of that bill simply stated, ‘The National Tax College Establishment Act is hereby repealed.’ It emphasized not to mislead citizens by saying ‘32 years of history, only three chapters...’

The statement clarified that the ‘Tax Support Suspension Ordinance’ proposed by People Power Party members does not dissolve TBS. Under civil law, a foundation corporation cannot be dissolved by a council ordinance. Since Park mentioned ‘survival competition’ during the city administration questioning, it appears she is well aware of this fact.

Nevertheless, Park cited Article 24 of the Local Government Investment and Contribution Institution Act concerning dissolution and claimed illegality. The ordinance is unrelated to corporate dissolution, so why mention dissolution?

If the ordinance proposed by the People Power Party passes, based on Article 5 of the same law, the procedure for revoking the designation of the contribution institution can proceed. This pertains to Article 5 of the law. However, it is inappropriate to ignore Article 5 and invoke unrelated Article 24 to claim illegality.

Park also mentioned the principle of trust protection that administrative agencies must uphold. The principle of trust protection is important. Regarding trust protection related to TBS, as mentioned by a Minbyun lawyer who attended the Democratic Party-led forum on the 14th, it relates to Article 4 of the Administrative Procedures Act. This provision prohibits retroactive disadvantageous treatment.

The ‘Tax Support Suspension Ordinance’ contains no provisions to reclaim taxes previously granted to tbs. Since it does not apply retroactively, it does not violate the trust protection principle under the Administrative Procedures Act.

Park criticized Article 2 of the supplementary provisions, which prioritizes the employment of current TBS employees in newly established or operating Seoul city investment and contribution institutions, claiming it directly violates Article 12 of the Local Government Investment and Contribution Act.

First, let us be clear. The People Power Party’s considerate approach toward current TBS employees does not deprive young job seekers of opportunities. New employee recruitment must, of course, be conducted through open competitive examinations as stipulated by law.

This provision envisions that if Seoul city establishes or existing city investment and contribution institutions take over some functions currently performed by TBS, current TBS employees will be given priority employment. To put it metaphorically, it is a kind of employee succession clause in the event of business transfer. Supreme Court precedents recognize the legality of employee succession in business transfers.

It is a bitter reality. The Democratic Party has actively urged employment succession even in private companies whenever possible, often interpreting the law expansively in this regard. However, regarding TBS, they are interpreting the law restrictively, contrary to their usual stance.

During the previous mayor’s term, the Democratic Party conducted a limited competitive examination only for non-regular workers at Seoul Transportation Corporation to convert them to regular positions. Why was a limited competitive examination held for regular employment?

Is it appropriate for Seoul Transportation Corporation to hold limited competitive exams but not for TBS?

This double standard attitude of the Democratic Party may threaten the treatment of TBS employees after the ordinance is processed.

Park also criticized Article 3 of the supplementary provisions concerning ‘preparatory acts necessary for asset settlement.’ The ordinance does not require Seoul city to reclaim contributions made to TBS. Movable and immovable properties currently owned by TBS rightfully belong to TBS.

However, once the ordinance takes effect and TBS becomes a private foundation corporation, if there are assets currently owned by Seoul city but used by TBS, or assets owned by TBS but used by Seoul city, the ordinance calls for preparatory acts such as status checks even before enforcement to neatly settle these matters. Claims that such preparatory acts are illegal are unacceptable.

Criticism of the ‘TBS Tax Support Suspension Ordinance’ is always welcome. If such criticism reveals shortcomings, they should be duly reflected during the council’s deliberation process. However, criticism must be based on accurate facts. Otherwise, such criticism will not be a starting point for democratic discussion but will be stigmatized as a source of fake news.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.