According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, with respect to the issue of whether the lawsuit of this case was duly transferred to the court below, the court below, on the premise that the administrative litigation against the disposition of collecting road occupation and use fees of this case cannot be filed without filing an objection in accordance with Article 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Act, Article 35 (2) of the Road Act. The plaintiff raised an objection against the defendant on January 9, 1978, after receiving the notice of the disposition of imposing the occupation and use fees of this case through the head of the Gu as of January 13, 1978, and the Jongno-gu Administrator notified the plaintiff that he would request the payment of occupation and use fees within a period of time after directly processing the above objection as of January 21, 1978 without filing the objection. The plaintiff's notification to the defendant by the head of Jongno-gu Office on January 25, 1978, and submitted the objection to the head of the above office other than the defendant. The plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been dismissed if the objection was filed within the above statutory period.

On the other hand, the collection of unjust enrichment equivalent to the occupation and use fees for the person who occupies and uses the road without permission is to be determined by the ordinance of the local government to which the road management authority belongs, as applied by Article 80-2 of the Road Act. If Article 7 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Collection of Road Occupancy and Use Fees, which is a local government to which the management authority of the road of this case belongs, is able to delegate the affairs related to the collection of occupation and use fees to the head of the Gu or the head of the branch office of Jongno-gu, and Article 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the above Ordinance can raise an objection within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice of the occupancy and use fees of this case. The above notice can not be raised after the expiration of the above period. However, the defendant's right to collect the occupation and use fees of this case can be delegated to the head of Jongno-gu (Seoul Special Metropolitan City), but if the head of Jongno-gu Office, who is the head of the Gu to which the notice was issued, to the plaintiff.

In the administrative litigation, the issue of whether the person is qualified as a party and whether the person is qualified as a party or not falls under the matter of ex officio investigation. Thus, the reason why the head of the Gu was decided directly by the head of the Gu and the reason why the head of the Gu was decided directly as to the objection, should should be examined as to the validity of the objection against the head of the Gu after the head of the Gu decided the defendant's correction if he was legitimate, while the head of the Gu followed the defendant's correction if he was the non-party, and it should be examined as to what authority the head of the Gu took place, and the objection against the head of the Gu was legitimate. However, the decision of the court below held that the case is illegal because the disposition agency did not depend only on the defendant's confession that the defendant is the defendant's confession that the defendant is the defendant, who is not considered as the disposition agency within a legitimate period of time, and the lawsuit is not unlawful because it did not go without examining the materials of the disposition of this case and did not properly determine the legitimacy of the lawsuit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)