[수도사용료추징금징수결정처분취소청구사건][고집1976특,319]
(a) Method of filing a complaint against the collection of usage fees by local governments;
B. A case of investigating ex officio the procedure of the preceding trial
(a) If there is an objection against the imposition and collection of fees collected by the local government, it shall go through the procedure of prior review to submit an objection to the head of the local government within ten days after the notification is received; and
(b) Whether a lawsuit is filed is a matter of ex officio investigation as a litigation requirement for administrative litigation.
Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 130 of the Local Autonomy Act
Supreme Court Decision 70Nu157 delivered on January 26, 1971 (Kakadd. 9397; Supreme Court Decision 19Nu193 delivered on December 26, 197, Supreme Court Decision 70Nu125 delivered on February 25, 1971 (Supreme Court Decision 9647; Supreme Court Decision 19Nu193 delivered on December 26, 197, Supreme Court Decision 70Nu193 delivered on December 26, 1973
Plaintiff
Incheon Market
The case shall be dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The disposition of additional collection of KRW 1,565,838, which was rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on August 28, 1975, Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Incheon, Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Incheon, 244, No. 1,565,838, is revoked. The costs of the lawsuit
The purport of the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim was that the Plaintiff managed and operated a swimming pool based on the Defendant’s Ordinance of the Si Park Park Si-si in Incheon. Since the Defendant rendered a decision to impose and collect the charges of a special swimming pool for the amount of water used from August 28, 1975 to August 1974, the said decision was in violation of the Incheon City Water Supply Ordinance, and thus, the Plaintiff requested a re-inspection to the Mayor on September 19, 1975, and the decision was made on September 29, 1975, and thus, it became the principal lawsuit to seek its revocation.
On the other hand, if a local government has an objection to the imposition or collection of fees for the use of public facilities by installing the public facilities, and if it has an objection to the imposition or collection of fees, it may file an objection with the head of the local government within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notification and bring an objection to the decision by the method of litigation (Article 130 of the Local Autonomy Act). According to the plaintiff's argument, it is obvious that the disposition of imposition has made a request for re-investigation on September 19, 199 after the lapse of 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice of collection of fees for the use of the public facilities, and such disposition of imposition shall
In this case, since the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is obvious to be improper, it is decided to omit and dismiss judgment on other points, and the costs of lawsuit are decided as per the order with the burden of the losing plaintiff.
Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Judge)