교통유발부담금부과처분취소 청구의 소
1. The part concerning the claim for the revocation of the imposition of charges for causing traffic congestion of KRW 76,50, among the lawsuits in this case, shall be dismissed;
2. The plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The purpose of the Plaintiff is to manage and operate the management body consisting of the sectional owners of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government A shopping mall (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) pursuant to the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and the management and operation of the said shopping mall and its site and its ancillary facilities.
B. On October 6, 2017, the Defendant imposed 898,130 won for causing traffic congestion on the Plaintiff’s 11 head office among the instant commercial buildings as follows.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). The imposition period: The imposition area from August 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017: 131.62m2: 70.68m2: Charges of KRW 1,200: 898,130: Transportation inducing coefficient of KRW 1,200: The traffic inducing coefficient of KRW 4.16 (Ground: Article 4.2 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Reduction, etc. of Traffic Inducement Charges, Etc., (B) The relevant large classification “Viewing Assembly Facilities”, “A. assembly hall: conference hall, public hall, wedding hall, etc.” (Ground: Article 4(2) related to Article 4(2) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Reduction, etc. of Traffic Inducement Charges, etc., (1), and (2) for C, D, and E, and < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 10.9220, Dec. 31, 2017>
2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as specified;
3. Part of decision ex officio (Dismissal)
A. On July 5, 2019, the Defendant corrected the charges for causing traffic congestion (=462,380 won for causing traffic congestion applying the traffic congestion coefficient to subparagraph C, D, and E) on the ground that only the stores located on the first floor of the instant commercial building, which are located on the second floor, should be subject to the traffic inducement coefficient by applying the traffic inducement coefficient by mistake to subparagraph C located on the second floor, and the charges for causing traffic congestion was imposed by applying the traffic inducement coefficient by mistake to the Plaintiff. In addition, the Defendant corrected the charges for causing traffic congestion by applying the traffic congestion coefficient to subparagraph C, D, and E 10.55.