 ▲ 여수웅천지구 전경 |
여수 웅천 택지지구 개발 과정에서 빚어진 수백억 원대 정산금 반환소송 패소의 책임이 여수시에 있다는 지적이 제기됐다.
막대한 세금 손실에도 여수시가 '정산금을 되돌려줬다'라는 등 변명으로 일관한 사실이 드러나 대시민 사과와 함께 공적 환수에 나서야 한다는 목소리가 높다.
4일 무소속 송하진 여수시의원(미평·만덕·삼일·묘도)에 따르면 송 의원은 지난 1일 열린 제231회 임시회시정 질문을 통해 이 같은 사실을 밝혔다.
송 의원은 이날 여수시는 지난 2007년 12월 선수분양자인 ㈜여수복합신도시개발과 최초 사업계약서 체결 이후 8번에 걸쳐 계약서 내용을 변경했다고 전했다.
이 과정에서 당초 택지 감정평가였던 분양가 책정 방식이 돌연 조성원가(8%이윤)방식으로 변경됐다. 여수시는 방식을 적용해 업체로부터 4,025억 원의 선수분양금을 받았다.
하지만 업체는 과다 정산을 이유로 여수시에 744억 원의 반환금 청구 소송을 제기했고, 여수시는 1, 2심 모두 패소했다. 이에 따라 총 485억 원의 세금을 업체에 반환했다.
여수시 패소의 주된 이유는 '조성원가' 책정 방식에 있었다. 업체는 조성원가의 기준이 1·2·3단계 전체면적이 기준돼야 한다고 주장한 반면, 여수시는 민간개발 영역인 2·3단계 부지에만 한정해야 한다고 맞섰다.
하지만 법원은 업체 측의 손을 들어줬다. 공영개발로 추진된 1단계와 민간개발인2~3단계 사업의 영역을 명확히 구분되지 않고 사업을 추진했다는 것이 법원의 주된 판단이다.
이로써 ㎡당 67만3,261원이었던 분양가가 56만4,563원으로 크게 줄었고 정산금역시 4,025억 원에서 3,646억 원으로 400억 원가량 줄었다.
여기에 업체로부터 납부받지 못한 선소대교 기부체납금 140억 원도 환수하지 못하고 있다. 변호사수임료 및 각종 인지대 등을 포함하면 적자액이 더욱 커질 수밖에 없는 현실이다.
만일 계약방식을 변경하지 않고 최초 계약서에 명시된 감정평가 산술금액을 적용하면 웅천 2, 3단계의 총정산금은 9,450억 원에 이른다. 조성원가 방식으로 책정된 4,025억 원의 두 배에 이르는 액수다.
이로 인한 정산금 차익, 패소 손실금, 선소대교 기부체납금까지 합치면 결론적으로 6,050억 원을 업체에 고스란히 내준 셈이다.
더욱이 업체가 여수시에 납부한 선수금 이자 감면에 있어서도 '선수금 이자 차감의 의무가 없다'라는 여수시의 잘못된 해석으로 선수금 이자 차감의 의무까지 지게됐다는 것이 송 의원의 설명이다.
송 의원은 "여수시가 8차례에 걸쳐 사업계약을 변경한 것은 상식을 벗어난 행정 난맥"이라며 "노른자위 같은 시민의 땅을 헐값에 넘겨주고, 시 재정 손실까지 가져왔으나 누구 하나 책임지는 사람이 없다"고 개탄했다.
송 의원은 당시 여수시 법률대리인 자격으로 1심 변론을 맡았던 정기명 시장에 대해서도 책임을 추궁했다. 정 시장은 당시 2억 2,000만 원의 수임료를 받은 것으로 확인됐다.
그는 "웅천 정산금 소송 패소는 행정절차의 위법행위, 행정 시스템 및 전문인력의 부재, 민선시장의 법과 절차를 초월하는 정치적 판단 및 행정의 폐쇄성이빚은 총체적 난국"이라며 "정산금 반환소송 패소는 전적으로 여수시에책임이 있다"고 결론지었다.
특히 최근 여수시가 웅천 정산금 반환소송 패소에 대해 '업체와 정산과정에서 과다 환수한 금액 일부를 돌려주란 판결이었다'라는 입장을 밝힌 것에 대해서도 '면피성이고, 억지 주장이며 시민을 기망하는 행위'라고 강도 높게 비판했다.
정기명 시장은 이에 대해 "여수시와 개발업체 간 계약서 작성이 잘못됐다는 사실을 인정한다"면서 "책임감을 느끼고 있고 시민에게 피해가 돌아가는 사태가 반복되지 않도록 하겠다”고 답변했다.
[아래는 구글로 번역한 영문기사 전문입니다. 영문번역에 오류가 있을 수 있음을 전제로 합니다. Below is the full English article translated by Google. It is assumed that there may be errors in the English translation.]
It was pointed out that Yeosu City was responsible for losing a lawsuit for the return of tens of billions of won in settlement money incurred during the development of the Yeosu Uncheon residential area.
It was revealed that Yeosu City consistently made excuses such as ‘we returned the settlement money’ despite the huge tax loss, and there are many voices calling for an apology to the citizens and a public recovery.
According to independent Yeosu City Councilor Song Ha-jin (Mipyeong, Mandeok, Samil, and Myodo) on the 4th, Rep. Song revealed this fact through a question on city administration at the 231st special session held on the 1st.
Rep. Song said on this day that Yeosu City has changed the contents of the contract eight times since signing the first business contract with Yeosu New City Development Co., Ltd., the prospective seller, in December 2007.
In this process, the sale price setting method, which was originally a residential land appraisal, was suddenly changed to the construction cost (8% profit) method. Yeosu City applied the method and received 402.5 billion won in pre-sale money from the company.
However, the company filed a lawsuit against Yeosu City for a refund of 74.4 billion won on the grounds of excessive settlement, and Yeosu City lost both the first and second trials. Accordingly, a total of 48.5 billion won in taxes was returned to the company.
The main reason for Yeosu City’s loss was the method of setting the ‘construction cost’. While the company argued that the construction cost should be based on the entire area of stages 1, 2, and 3, Yeosu City countered that it should be limited to the 2nd and 3rd stage sites, which are private development areas.
However, the court sided with the company. The court's main judgment is that the project was promoted without clearly distinguishing between the first stage, which was promoted as a public development, and the second and third stages, which were private developments.
As a result, the sale price, which was 673,261 won per m2, decreased significantly to 564,563 won, and the settlement amount also decreased by about 40 billion won, from 402.5 billion won to 364.6 billion won.
In addition, the company has not been able to recover 14 billion won in donation arrears for Seonsodaegyo Bridge, which was not paid by the company. The reality is that if attorney fees and various stamp fees are included, the deficit is bound to increase further.
If the contract method is not changed and the appraised arithmetic amount specified in the initial contract is applied, the total settlement amount for Woongcheon 2 and 3 stages will amount to 945 billion won. This amount is twice the amount of 402.5 billion won calculated using the construction cost method.
Including the resulting settlement profit, loss from loss, and donation arrears for Seonsodaegyo Bridge, 605 billion won was ultimately paid to the company.
Furthermore, Rep. Song explained that even in the case of reduction of advance payment interest paid by the company to Yeosu City, Yeosu City's incorrect interpretation that ‘there is no obligation to deduct interest from advance payment’ resulted in the company being obligated to deduct interest from advance payment.
Rep. Song said, “The fact that Yeosu City changed the business contract eight times is an administrative mess that goes beyond common sense,” and added, “The citizens’ land, which was like a yolk, was handed over at a low price, and the city suffered financial losses, but no one is responsible.” It was deplorable.
Rep. Song also held accountable Mayor Jeong Ki-myeong, who was in charge of the first trial argument as a legal representative of Yeosu City at the time. It was confirmed that Mayor Jeong received a fee of 220 million won at the time.
He said, “The loss in the Ungcheon settlement fee lawsuit is a total mess caused by illegal actions in administrative procedures, the absence of an administrative system and professional manpower, the political judgment that goes beyond the laws and procedures of a popularly elected mayor, and the closedness of the administration.” He added, “The loss in the settlement refund lawsuit is entirely due to Yeosu City. “There is responsibility,” he concluded.
In particular, in response to Yeosu City's recent loss in the lawsuit for the return of Ungcheon settlement money, the city of Yeosu expressed its position by saying, 'It was a ruling to return a portion of the excessive amount recovered during the settlement process with the company.' highly criticized.
Mayor Jeong Ki-myeong responded to this by saying, “I admit that the contract between Yeosu City and the developer was written incorrectly,” and “I feel responsible, and I will make sure that a situation that causes damage to citizens is not repeated.”
원본 기사 보기:브레이크뉴스전남동부
