[2] Whether a municipal ordinance provision which recognizes the same grounds as the occupation and use fees for the reduction of unjust enrichment due to illegal occupation and use of a road is invalid without delegation under the law (negative)

[2] The provisions of Article 6 (4), (1) 2, and (2) 2 of the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Collection of Illegal Gains for Illegal Occupancy and Use of Roads are based on each of the provisions of Articles 80-2, 43 (2), and 44 subparagraph 3 of the Road Act, Article 26-5 (2) and (3) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act, and are valid as it is based on each of the provisions of Article 80-2, Article 43 (2), and Article 26-5 (

1. On the first ground for appeal

원심판결 이유를 기록과 관계 법령에 비추어 살펴보면, 원심이, 한국전기통신공사법에 의하여 전기통신사업을 목적으로 설립된 원고 공사가 전기통신시설인 서울통신센터 신축공사에 관하여 피고로부터 건축허가를 받아 공사를 시행하면서 허가내용에 따라 그 신축부지에 접한 토지 중 서울특별시장이 관리하는 도로로서 도로점용료 징수권이 피고에게 위임된 도로와 피고가 도로관리청으로서 관리하는 도로의 각 지하에 어스앙카를 설치함으로써 이를 점용한 것은 도로법 제43조 제2항, 제44조 제3호, 같은법시행령(1996. 2. 15. 대통령령 제14915호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제26조의2, 제26조의5 제2항의 각 규정에 좇아 제정된 서울특별시도로점용료징수조례와 서울특별시양천구도로점용료징수조례 각 제6조의 규정에 따라 도로점용료가 ½로 감액되는 전기통신시설을 설치하는 사업을 위한 경우에 해당한다 는 취지로 판단한 조치는 옳고, 거기에 상고이유에서 주장하는 바와 같은 도로법상 점용료 감면규정에 관한 법리오해, 조례상의 점용료 감면요건의 오해 등의 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다.

2. On the second ground for appeal

The provisions of Articles 6(4), 6(1)2, and 6(2)2 of the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Collection of Unjust Enrichment Charges for Illegal Occupancy and Use of Roads are based on the provisions of Articles 80-2, 43(2), and 44 subparag. 3 of the Road Act, and Article 26-5(2) and 26-5(3)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act, and cannot be deemed invalid as a matter of course without any legal basis. In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the reduction and exemption provisions of this Ordinance apply to the calculation of unjust enrichment for occupying and using roads by installing temporary fences on the road managed by the defendant without permission and piling up construction materials, etc. In the same purport, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground for appeal.

The part of the ground of appeal that the illegal occupancy of the road of this case by the plaintiff does not fall under Article 6 (3) 2 of this Ordinance, which stipulates that the occupancy and use of the road for the purpose of piling up construction materials shall be limited to the minimum necessary area for the execution of construction works, and should not be excluded from the reduction and exemption of unjust enrichment, shall not be a legitimate ground of appeal as it is a new assertion

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)