교통유발부담금부과처분 무효확인
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The Defendant’s “Notice Date” as set forth in the separate sheet refers to the Plaintiffs on each corresponding date.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition or dismissal as follows. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article
Part 3. The following shall be added to the third place “as described in paragraph 7.”
Article 36 and Article 37 of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act, Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act concerning the imposition of traffic inducement charges, Article 3-3 and attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act concerning traffic inducement charges, and Article 3-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act concerning traffic inducement charges, are amended several times. However, since there is no substantial difference in the part related to the issue of this case, only the Acts and subordinate statutes which apply to the disposition of traffic inducement charges, which was made after October 3, 2017, are written and determined based thereon.
The Enforcement Rule of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 640, Jul. 29, 2019; hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Rule of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act”) in Part 15 of the 4th Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act.
b) in 198,00
The following are met: (1) Whether there is a defect corresponding to the invalidation of a disposition of this case under the following conditions: (2) whether there is a defect corresponding to the invalidation of a disposition of this case under the following conditions: (1) In order for a defective administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, the defect must be objectively obvious and objectively obvious; (2) in determining whether there is a significant and obvious defect, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the relevant law should be examined from a teleological perspective and reasonable consideration of the specificity of the specific case itself:
Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu4615 delivered on July 11, 1995.