[도로수익자부담금부과처분취소청구사건][하집1989(3),381]
The interpretation of Article 6 (2) of the Ordinance on Collection of Charges on Road Beneficiaries of Busan Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities, which prescribes the method of sample survey for collecting the charges on road beneficiaries.
In light of the purport of Article 66 of the Road Act and Articles 2 through 4 of the Rules on the Collection of Charges for Road Beneficiaries, Article 6 (2) of the Ordinance on the Collection of Charges for Road Beneficiaries of Busan Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities, which provides the method of sample inspection in a land value survey, provides for internal administrative processing guidelines for the method of price assessment in order to restrict the substantial effort and expenditure of expenses in the case of investigating and assessing the price of all land to be imposed by individual parcels of land to be imposed by the beneficiary. In addition, even in a case where the individual land price is not increased by more than twice the natural rising value, it shall not be construed to the effect that the whole of the land to be calculated on the basis of sample land price is increased by more than twice the natural rising value.
Article 66 of the Road Act, Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Regulations on Collection of Charges for Road Beneficiaries, Article 6 of the Ordinance on Collection of Charges for Road Beneficiaries of Busan Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities.
Kim Jong-bong et al.
Head of Busan Metropolitan City and Jung-gu
1. On March 14, 198, the part that exceeds 145,870 won of the imposition of the road beneficiary charges as specified in the attached Table against the Plaintiff’s order, the same Kim Han-chul, and the same regulations, and the part that exceeds 137,200 won of the same imposition disposition against the Plaintiff’s term of office, the part that incurs 137,200 won of the same imposition disposition against the Plaintiff’s term of office, and the part that exceeds 62,50 won of the same imposition disposition against the Plaintiff’s white schools, shall be revoked.
2. The remainder of the plaintiff's exhaust film, the same yellow light, the same terms of office, and the same white light shall be dismissed.
3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the parts arising between the plaintiffs' order, the same Kim Jong-chul, the same ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked ranked
The imposition of each of the road beneficiary charges stated in the attached Table against the plaintiffs on March 14, 198 shall be revoked.
The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.
In full view of the purport of the pleading in the statement No. 1-3 through No. 8, No. 1-2, No. 1-2, No. 2-1 through No. 3-4, No. 3-1, No. 4, No. 4-1,2, and No. 3, the head of Busan Metropolitan City, the head of Busan Metropolitan City, the head of the public corporation, the head of which recognized the difference of construction price of 1,452,403,690 won and constructed No. 1,40 won and constructed No. 240, Jun. 4, 1987, the value of which is 5 meters higher than that of the above construction price of No. 30, No. 1987, Dec. 6, 1987; the value of which is 5 meters higher than that of the above construction work; the value of which is 0 meters higher than that of the above construction work before and after the announcement of construction work by the Mayor of Busan Metropolitan City and the public corporation.
2. Accordingly, even if the above construction works were conducted on the surface of the above expansion, the plaintiffs were to be aground above 4 meters high or above of the above construction works, and thus, to enter the road, the passage of the land at the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right are exercised.
Therefore, according to the above evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, and 4-1 of the above evidence Nos. 7-1, 7-2, as shown in the above Table No. 1-2, the remuneration 1-378, 249, 366, 387, 384, and 414 owned by the plaintiff 1-2, as shown in the above Table No. 370, 600, 1-1 of the remuneration owned by the plaintiff 1-4, 2-374, 1-2, 379 and 380, 1-2, 370, 200, 2-60, 3700, 2-60, 700, 700, 600, 600, 60, 60, 70, 60, 60, 60, 700, 60, 60, 60, 7, 7, etc.
3. Thus, the defendant's claim for the disposition of this case as to the plaintiff's anti-defense, Gimk, Gink, Kink, Kink, Kink, Kink, Kink, and Kink, and the part exceeding the above recognized amount among the disposition of this case as to plaintiff's movie, yellow, yellow, Kink, Kink, Kink, Kink, Kink, Kink, and Kink, should be revoked as unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the disposition of this case as to the plaintiff's anti-defense, Gink, Kink, Kink, Kink, Kink, Kink, Kink, Kink, and Kink should be accepted as reasonable, and the remaining claims shall be accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 8 of
Judges Cho Jin-Jin-Jin (Presiding Judge)