[1] In the case of a new construction or extension of a building, the criteria for determining whether traffic inducement charges are imposed under the former Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act and its Enforcement Decree, and the initial date in calculating the tax reduction or exemption period under Article 38 (1) [Attachment Table 7] of

[2] Where a facility subject to charges for causing traffic congestion meets the requirements for reduction or exemption under Article 38(1) [Attachment 7] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act, whether the person with the authority to collect charges has discretion on the reduction or exemption rate (negative)

[3] In a case where a traffic impact assessment, etc. is applied to a facility subject to a traffic impact assessment under the former Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act and a notification of the contents of consultation is given pursuant to the "Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, etc." newly implemented, whether such facility may be subject to the reduction or exemption of traffic impact inducement charges under

[1] In light of the contents, legislative purport, and the regulatory structure of Article 21 of the former Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 6642 of Jan. 26, 2002), and Articles 33 and 38(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17760 of Oct. 14, 2002), and the provisions related to the imposition and exemption of traffic inducement charges, such as the relevant [Attachment Table 7], in a case where a building is constructed “construction”, regardless of whether it is a “new construction” or “extension” (hereinafter “new building”) causes traffic inducement charges, and falls under a new building subject to imposition of traffic inducement charges under the above Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, the owner of the “new building” shall be granted the traffic inducement charges to the “new building” after obtaining the approval of traffic inducement charges from the date of its implementation under the former Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17760 of Oct. 14, 2002).

[2] Where a facility subject to the imposition of charges for causing traffic congestion under the former Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6642 of Jan. 26, 2002) meets the requirements for reduction or exemption under Article 38 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17760 of Oct. 14, 2002), the person having the right to collect charges for causing traffic congestion shall be granted the reduction or exemption pursuant to subparagraph 4 of the attached Table 7 of the same Act and the upper limit of the reduction or exemption rate shall not set the reduction or exemption rate in consideration of the various circumstances within the scope.

[3] Comprehensively taking into account the contents and legislative intent of Articles 13 through 19-2, 19-4 through 19-9 of the former Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6095 of Dec. 31, 1999; hereinafter the same), and the fact that the former Act enacted the Act on Assessment of Environment, Traffic, Disasters, Etc. (hereinafter the "Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works") by Act No. 6095 of Dec. 31, 199, the above provisions of the Act were deleted; the contents and legislative intent of the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works, and the fact that the assessment statement notified through deliberation under the former Act pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Addenda of the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works, etc. are deemed to be the contents of consultation under the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works, etc., it can be deemed that the facilities subject to charges for causing traffic congestion is subject to reduction and exemption under the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works, etc.

[1] Article 13 of the former Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6095 of Dec. 31, 199), Article 21 of the former Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6642 of Jan. 26, 2002) (see current Article 18), Article 33 (see current Article 16), Article 38 (1) [Attachment Table 7] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1760 of Oct. 14, 202), Article 5 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 2095 of Dec. 31, 199), Article 20 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 1760 of Oct. 16, 200) / [2] Article 19 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Traffic Improvement Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 13670 of the current Act)

The Korea International Trade Association and three others (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Shin Sung-ki et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Law Firm Youngjin, Attorneys Jeong Yong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu3429 delivered on April 29, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 21 of the former Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6642 of Jan. 26, 202; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), Articles 33 and 38(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17760 of Oct. 14, 2002; hereinafter the same shall apply), and related provisions concerning the imposition and exemption of charges for causing traffic congestion (hereinafter referred to as "charges") such as attached Table 7, their legislative intent, and the system of such regulations, regardless of whether construction is a "new construction" or "extension" (hereinafter referred to as the "new building"), the owner of a new building shall be entitled to reduction or exemption of charges for the traffic impact assessment under the attached Table 3, which provides that the standards for the imposition and exemption of charges for the new building shall be determined within the scope of reduction or exemption of charges under the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17660 of Oct. 14, 2002); and the new building owner shall be entitled to the reduction or exemption of charges under the Act 3.

In addition, considering the contents and legislative purport of the provisions of Articles 13 through 19-2 and 19-4 through 19-9 of the former Act, and the fact that the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works on Environment, Traffic, Disasters, etc. (hereinafter “Assessment Act”) was enacted on December 31, 199 as the Act No. 6095 of Dec. 31, 199, the above provisions of the former Act are deleted, and the assessment report notified through deliberation under the former Act is deemed to be a notification of contents of consultation under the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works, etc. under Article 5(2) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Act at the time of the enforcement of the former Act, even if the Act applied for traffic impact assessment and deliberation under the former Act at the time of the enactment and enforcement of the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works, the facilities in compliance with the notification of contents of consultation under the Act on Assessment of Impacts of Works may also receive reduction or exemption benefits in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act and the attached Table 7.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the plaintiffs constructed the building in this case on March 13, 2002 with a total of 148,784 square meters (hereinafter "the site in this case"), which is three lots of land, as a single site. However, before the construction of the building in this case, the buildings in this case had already been constructed on November 3, 1989 as the date of approval for use. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs filed an application for traffic impact assessment and deliberation on the building in this case for the first time on December 11, 1996 pursuant to Article 13 of the former Act, and the notification of the contents of consultation under the Impact Assessment Act was issued on March 18, 2002 to the plaintiffs on March 18, 2002, with the notice of the contents of consultation under the Impact Assessment Act, and the defendant stated "10%" in the evaluation grade column, "90%", and the period of reduction or exemption from charges in this case on March 26, 2002."

Examining the above facts in light of the above legal principles, charges for three years from March 18, 2002, which were the approval date of use of the building of this case, should be reduced by 90%, and the defendant imposed charges for the building of this case without such reduction. The disposition of this case is unlawful within the scope of the disposition of this case. Although the judgment below is somewhat insufficient in its reasoning, it is just in its conclusion, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for application of Article 38 (1) of the Act and the meaning of the "the first completion date of the building of this case" and "the reduction rate" of attached Table 7 as 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)