Supreme Court Rules Exemption from TV License Fees for Single Soldiers' Dormitory TVs in Military Units

"Administrative Sanctions Against the State Must Also Follow Procedures"

The Supreme Court has ruled that TV receivers in military guesthouses or single-person quarters within military bases should be exempt from the license fee. It emphasized that if the relevant law stipulates that 'receivers located within military premises' are exempt from the license fee regardless of their intended use, the provision must be interpreted literally without any expansive or analogical interpretation.

Additionally, the Supreme Court explicitly stated for the first time that administrative dispositions against the state are unlawful if administrative procedures such as prior notification or hearing of opinions, as required by the Administrative Procedures Act, are not followed.

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul.

According to the legal community on the 9th, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Seo Kyung-hwan) upheld the lower court's ruling in favor of the plaintiff in the appeal case where the Republic of Korea (government) sued Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) to cancel the license fee imposition order.

Under the Broadcasting Act, KEPCO, entrusted by the Korean Broadcasting System (KBS) to collect television broadcast license fees, discovered multiple TVs in the guesthouses and single-person quarters within the Air Force's 11th Fighter Wing base in Daegu in 2020 and imposed license fees for three months.

KEPCO collects a license fee of 2,500 KRW per receiver monthly together with the electricity bill from electricity customers and receives a commission based on a certain percentage of the collected license fees.

Subsequently, KBS continued to request payment of the unpaid fees. A joint investigation by KBS and the Air Force unit in January 2022 found a total of 769 TVs in the quarters, and the unpaid amount owed to KBS amounted to tens of millions of KRW.

The government filed a lawsuit in February 2021 seeking cancellation of the license fee imposition order, which was the basis for the unpaid fee demands.

The trial focused on two main issues. The first was whether TVs in military guesthouses or single-person quarters within military bases are subject to license fee imposition. The second was whether the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs administrative procedures, applies equally to administrative dispositions against the state, and whether failure to comply with these procedures renders the disposition unlawful.

Regarding the license fee imposition, the government argued that KEPCO did not provide prior notification of the facts and legal grounds for the disposition, nor did it state the basis for the disposition in the order, making it impossible to know the factual and legal grounds used to calculate the TV license fees, which was unlawful.

In court, the government contended that under the Broadcasting Act and its Enforcement Decree, receivers located within military premises are exempt from registration, so KEPCO's license fee imposition on such receivers was unlawful.

On the other hand, KEPCO and KBS, participating as a supporting party for the defendant, argued that only receivers installed for 'public or official use' should be exempt from the license fee. They also claimed that since military housing and single-person quarters are distributed both inside and outside bases, imposing different license fees based solely on location could raise fairness issues.

The first and second trial courts ruled in favor of the government.

The courts stated, "The term 'receivers located within military premises' in the Enforcement Decree should be interpreted literally as receivers physically located within military premises," and added, "It should not be interpreted, as KBS claims, that only receivers located within military premises and directly related to military duties are exempt from registration."

They further noted, "Such an interpretation would add ambiguous and unclear concepts like 'direct relation to military duties' to the statutory meaning of 'within military premises,' which deviates from the ordinary meaning of the text and constitutes an improper expansive interpretation unfavorable to the party subject to the administrative disposition."

The courts concluded, "The Enforcement Decree distinguishes between receivers exempt from registration based solely on their location and those exempt based on both location and use. Therefore, receivers 'within military premises' are exempt from registration regardless of their intended use, and license fees cannot be imposed on them."

Regarding the meaning of 'within military premises,' KEPCO argued that interpreting it literally as the government suggests would lead to an unreasonable situation where facilities unrelated to basic military duties would be uniformly exempt from license fees, contrary to legislative intent. The courts responded, "Even if facilities are located within military premises, receivers in commercial facilities and military housing are owned or possessed by civilians, so they cannot be considered military-owned receivers. In fact, license fees are paid for receivers in commercial facilities and military housing, so this part of the defendant's argument is unfounded."

Moreover, the courts added, "Even if the exemption for receiver registration were limited to receivers located in facilities related to military duties, the plaintiff Air Force unit placed single-person and guest quarters within the premises to facilitate prompt reporting and standby during emergencies and to prevent leakage of military secrets. Therefore, these facilities should be regarded as related to military duties."

Regarding the second issue, KEPCO and KBS argued, "The Administrative Procedures Act does not apply to the state as the plaintiff, so whether the Act was violated in this case is irrelevant."

However, the first and second trial courts rejected this argument.

The second trial court stated, "Considering the legislative intent of the Administrative Procedures Act, the increasing frequency of cases where the state is the party subject to administrative dispositions, the necessity of procedural legality regardless of the party, and the absence of explicit provisions excluding the state's application, it is reasonable to apply the Administrative Procedures Act to the state as well."

The Supreme Court also found no problem with the lower courts' rulings on the two issues.

Until now, the Supreme Court had held that administrative dispositions imposing obligations or restricting rights must comply with procedural rules under the Administrative Procedures Act, and failure to do so generally renders the disposition unlawful. However, it had never explicitly stated whether the same principle applies when the state is the opposing party.

In this regard, the Supreme Court pointed out, "According to Article 2, Clause 4 of the Administrative Procedures Act, 'parties, etc.' refers to parties directly subject to administrative dispositions and interested parties participating in the administrative procedure by the administrative agency's authority or request. Article 9 of the same Act stipulates that natural persons, corporations, unincorporated associations or foundations, and 'those who can be subjects of rights or obligations under other laws' can be 'parties, etc.' The Act does not exclude the state from 'parties, etc.'"

It added, "Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Administrative Procedures Act enumerates exceptions where the Act does not apply, but 'administrative acts against the state' are not among these exceptions."

The court stated, "Considering these provisions and the legislative intent to ensure fairness, transparency, and reliability in administration, there is no reason to treat the state differently from ordinary citizens when it suffers disadvantages from administrative dispositions. Therefore, the Administrative Procedures Act, including prior notification, hearing, and statement of reasons, applies equally to administrative dispositions against the state."

A Supreme Court official said, "This ruling explicitly clarifies for the first time that administrative procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act must be followed even when administrative dispositions are made against the state, and failure to comply generally renders the disposition unlawful."

He added, "The ruling also emphasized that the interpretation of receivers exempt from registration under Article 39 of the Enforcement Decree of the Broadcasting Act must be faithful to the text."

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