Whether the Mayor may file an administrative lawsuit against the defendant against the disposition of imposition of beneficiary charges due to road works by the head of the Gu of Busan City.

The head of the Gu, who is an administrative agency in charge of the affairs of the Busan City, may impose and collect the beneficiary charges for road construction within his jurisdiction under Article 66 (2) of the Road Act, Article 106 of the Local Autonomy Act, and Article 16 of the Ordinance on the Charges for Road Beneficiaries of the Busan City, and if there is an objection to the disposition, the head of the Gu who has taken the disposition shall file an administrative lawsuit against the defendant against the Busan City Mayor who is not the head of the Gu, and

(a) Article 22(b) of the Road Act, Article 66(c) of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 106(d) of the Ordinance on the Charges of Beneficiaries of Busan City/Do, Article 16(e) of the same Act;

Plaintiff

Busan City Mayor (Attorney Seo-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 72Gu23 delivered on December 18, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

The main point of the grounds of appeal is that the head of the Busan Si/Gun/Gu does not have the authority to decide whether to impose the charges on road beneficiaries due to road works implemented by the main office of Busan City, such as this case, and therefore, the original judgment is not appropriate for the defendant, and only the defendant Busan City Mayor has the standing to be the defendant, but there is a wrong

However, according to the provisions of Articles 22(2) and 66(1) of the Road Act, where there is a person who benefits from the construction of a road under the jurisdiction of the Busan City, the Mayor of the Busan City may require the person who benefits from the construction to bear all or part of the expenses incurred in the construction within the limits of the benefits therefrom. According to Article 66(2) of the Road Act, matters concerning the collection of the above charges shall be prescribed by the Municipal Ordinance of the local government to which the management agency belongs. According to Article 106 of the Local Autonomy Act, the head of the local government may delegate part of the administrative affairs within his jurisdiction to the employees of the local government or the head of the administrative agency or the head of the local government within his jurisdiction. Accordingly, according to Article 16 of the Ordinance on the Charges on the Charges of the Users of the Busan City, which seems to have been enacted, the above authority to impose and collect the beneficiary charges can be delegated to the head of the Gu under his jurisdiction. In full view of these provisions, each head of the Gu, who is the administrative agency of the Busan City, shall be the defendant of the next Busan City.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of the costs of appeal.

Justices Kim Ha-ju (Presiding Justice) Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)