[도로점용료추가부과처분무효확인][공1992.1.15.(912),338]
A ledger of objection filed with the Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan Government regarding the imposition of road usage fees by the head of the Gu entrusted with the authority to collect road occupation fees (negative)
In cases where an administrative agency entrusted with the authority to impose fees for the use of public facilities by the head of a local government imposes fees on the head of the local government, it is reasonable to regard the "head of the local government" under Article 130 (3) of the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4004 of Apr. 6, 198) as an administrative agency entrusted with the authority to impose fees by the head of the local government. Therefore, an objection against the imposition of fees for the occupation and use of roads within the scope of the head of the Gu entrusted with the authority to collect fees for the occupation and use of roads by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor pursuant to Article 7
Article 130(3) of the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4004 of April 6, 198), Article 35(2) and Article 43 of the Road Act, Article 7 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Collection of Road Occupancy and Use Fees, Article 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Ordinance, Article 16 of the same Ordinance
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Attorney Choi Chang-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant
The head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Supreme Court Decision 88Nu5815 delivered on December 11, 1990
Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu980 delivered on April 19, 1991
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to Articles 43 and 35(2) of the Road Act, matters necessary for the collection of road occupation and use fees shall be prescribed by the Municipal Ordinance of the local government to which the road management authority belongs. Article 7 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Collection of Road occupation and use fees of the local government to which the road management authority belongs shall be delegated to the head of the Gu. Article 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Ordinance shall apply mutatis mutandis to the filing of an objection to the imposition of road occupation and use fees of the head of the Gu. Article 130(3) of the former Local Autonomy Act (amended by Act No. 4004, Apr. 6, 198; hereinafter the same shall apply) which was in force at the time of the instant disposition. Article 130(2) of the same Act provides that the head of the local government may raise an objection to the imposition of usage fees of the local government within 10 days from the date on which the head of the local government, who was delegated the head of the local government, with the authority to impose usage fees of the local government.
In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendant who was delegated with the authority to collect road occupation and use fees of this case by the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall raise an objection against the additional imposition of road occupation and use fees of this case to the defendant who is the disposition agency, and the plaintiff's objection to the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall not be deemed a legitimate objection as stipulated in Article 130 (3) of the Local Autonomy Act
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)