[행정처분취소(도로사용료부과처분취소)청구사건][고집1975특,483]
The meaning of a case where the occupation and use of a road under Article 44 of the Road Act is for public use or public interest.
In Article 44 of the Road Act, where the occupation and use of a road is for public use or public interest, it refers to a nonprofit business for public use or public interest, and the electricity business of the Korean Electric Power Company has the nature of public interest, but it is not a nonprofit business because it does not exclude the purpose of profit-making.
Article 44 of the Road Act, Article 5 of the Korea Electric Power Company Act
Supreme Court Decision 74Nu127 delivered on December 24, 1974 (Supreme Court Decision 10877Da10877, Supreme Court Decision 223Nu59 delivered on December 24, 197, Decision 44(2)1836 of the Road Act)
Korea Electric Power Corporation
Head of Busan Metropolitan City/Dong
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The disposition of imposition of KRW 543,00,00, against the Plaintiff on October 17, 1973 by the Defendant, shall be revoked.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The defendant is not a dispute between the parties as to the fact that the plaintiff company constructed the electric poles in the Dong-gu Office of Busan and used the road on October 17, 1973 and imposed 543,000 won on the plaintiff for the electric minutes of the year 1973.
However, the plaintiff's attorney recognizes the public interest of the Electric Utility Act that the electricity business is a business that bears the social responsibility that should be supplied generally and without discrimination, recognizes the monopoly of the business, and at the same time thoroughly controls and supervises the business. Therefore, the plaintiff's attorney's act of occupying and using the road for the supply of electricity, which is the first time for the supply of electricity, by the plaintiff company established by the special law of the Korea Electric Power Corporation Act, in order to promote the development of electric power and promote the rational operation of the electricity business, shall not be a public interest business, and it constitutes the occupation and use of the road for the purpose of public use or public interest as stipulated in Article 44 of the Road Act, and thus, even though it is excluded from the collection of road usage fees, the defendant's above administrative disposition should be revoked by the invalidation or illegal administrative disposition.
The meaning of the case where the occupation and use of a road under Article 44 of the Road Act is for public use or public interest purpose is reasonable to interpret it as a case for a non-profit business for public use or public interest purpose, and it is reasonable to interpret it as a case for a non-profit business for the purpose of public use or public interest. In light of the fact that the provisions of Chapter II of the Korea Electric Power Company Act concerning the shares are allowed to pay dividends to the private sector, and that the provisions of the Commercial Act are applied to the matters that are not provided for in Article 5 of the same Act, the electricity business operated by the plaintiff company has the nature of public interest, but at the same time, it cannot be viewed as a non-profit business because it does not exclude the purpose of profit-making. Thus, the occupation and use of the plaintiff company cannot be viewed as a
Thus, the plaintiff company's claim for objection based on the premise that the occupation and use of the case of this case is aimed at the public interest is clear without any further determination. Thus, it is dismissed and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.
Judges Sap-man (Presiding Judge) Lee Jae-man
Judges Saples are not able to sign up in full.