[교통유발부담금부과처분취소][미간행]
Method of calculating charges for causing traffic congestion to a person who acquires ownership of a facility during the one-year unit period prior to the date of imposition of charges for causing traffic congestion (=Proportional burden according to the
[1] Article 21 of the former Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6642 of Jan. 26, 2002) (see Article 18 of the current Act) Article 36 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17760 of Oct. 14, 2002) Article 37 (1) (see Article 22 (1) of the current Act)
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Kim Gyeong-Gyeong
The head of Gwangju Metropolitan City North Korea;
Gwangju High Court Decision 2002Nu2030 delivered on January 30, 2003
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
In full view of the relevant provisions such as Article 21 of the former Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6642 of Jan. 26, 2002) and Articles 36 and 37(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17760 of Oct. 14, 2002), the lower court determined that the charges for causing traffic congestion should be imposed in proportion to the amount causing traffic, i.e., the number of traffic congestion during the unit period of one year prior to the base date, and that it is reasonable for the person subject to imposition to calculate the charges in proportion to the period of possession of the facilities causing traffic congestion, and that there is a traffic congestion factor during the unit period (i.e., the base date for imposition) and thus, the total charges imposed on each unit period cannot be imposed. Accordingly, the part of the Defendant’s disposition that the Plaintiff did not calculate in proportion to the period during which it owned the building of
In light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below as just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the person subject to charges for causing traffic congestion, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)