[광역교통시설부담금부과처분취소][공2004.6.1.(203),912]
Whether Article 11 (4) of the former Special Act on the Management of Metropolitan Transport in Metropolitan Areas applies only to cases where a housing site development project, etc. is approved after the enforcement date of the same Act pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda (negative)
Although Article 2 of the Addenda of the Special Act on the Management of Metropolitan Transport in Metropolitan Areas (Act No. 6402, Jan. 29, 2001) provides that "the charges under the provisions of Article 11 shall apply from the projects approved pursuant to the provisions of Article 11-4 (1) after the enforcement date of this Act", it is merely a provision that the project subject to the provisions of each subparagraph of Article 11 of the same Act shall be subject to the charges if the project is approved or authorized after the enforcement date of the same Act, and it shall not be subject to the imposition of the charges only if the housing development project is approved after the enforcement date of the same Act.
Article 11 subparag. 4 and Article 11-4(1) of the former Special Act on the Management of Metropolitan Transport in Metropolitan Areas (Amended by Act No. 6852, Dec. 30, 2002); Article 2 of the Addenda (Amended by Act No. 6402, Jan. 29, 2001)
Geumbong Construction Co., Ltd. (Law Firm us, Attorneys Seo-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Busan Metropolitan City Mayor (Attorney Jeong-woo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Busan High Court Decision 2003Nu1073 delivered on July 11, 2003
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Even if the operator of a housing construction project under the Housing Construction Promotion Act under Article 11 subparagraph 4 of the former Special Act on the Management of Metropolitan Transport in Metropolitan Areas (amended by Act No. 6402 of Jan. 29, 2001, and amended by Act No. 6852 of Dec. 30, 2002, referred to as the "Act") is an operator of a housing construction project under Article 11 subparagraph 4 of the former Special Act on the Management of Metropolitan Transport in Metropolitan Areas, the housing construction project under the Housing Construction Promotion Act shall be excluded from the payment of charges for metropolitan transport facilities if the housing construction project is carried out in a district, district or project area where the housing construction project is implemented under the Housing Construction Promotion Act, and the strict interpretation of the relevant provisions is required in light of the constitutional request for protecting people's property rights and the principle of administration under the rule of law. Thus, even if Article 2 of the Addenda of the Act provides that "the charges under Article 11 shall be applied from the project subject to the revision of Article 11-4 (1) after the enforcement date of this Act."
The court below held that the disposition of this case, which the defendant imposed 563,164,00 won of metropolitan transportation facility charges on the plaintiff by applying Article 11 subparagraph 4 and Article 11-4 of the Act and Article 2 of the Addenda, is unlawful, since it is in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the interpretation of Article 11 subparagraph 4 of the Act and Article 11 subparagraph 4 of the Act, Article 11 of the Act, and Article 2 of the Addenda, and the interpretation of Article 2 of the Addenda, which is implemented by the Korea Housing Corporation after obtaining approval of the housing site development plan from the defendant on July 3, 194.
We cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal.
Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.
Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)