The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1.(a)

Article 11(1) of the former Special Act on the Management of Intercity Transport in Metropolitan Areas (amended by Act No. 13499, Aug. 28, 2015; hereinafter “Wide-Area Transport Act”) provides that “Any person who carries out any of the following projects in a metropolitan area for which an implementation plan for intercity transport has been formulated and publicly announced shall pay charges for intercity transport facilities to construct and improve intercity transport facilities, etc.” In addition, housing site development projects under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act (subparagraph 1), housing site development projects under the Housing Act (title 3), housing site development projects under the Housing Act, housing construction projects under the Housing Act (title 4) are listed

However, Article 11(1) of the former Special Act on the Construction of Bogeumjari Housing, etc. (amended by Act No. 12251, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter “the Bogeumjari Housing Act”) does not stipulate the same as the Act on the Construction of Bogeumjari Housing, etc. as the grounds for the project subject to the imposition of metropolitan transport charges.

Article 11(1)4 of the Housing Act provides that only “housing construction projects under the Housing Act” shall be included in the subject project subject to the imposition of a project if the project approval has been deemed to have been held in accordance with other statutes.

According to such laws and regulations, it is reasonable to view that the Bogeumjari Housing Zone development project under the Bogeumjari Housing Act is not included in the project subject to the imposition of metropolitan transport charges under Article 11(1) of the Metropolitan Transport Act.

The reasons are as follows.

Administrative laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for an sediment administrative disposition, must be interpreted and applied strictly, and shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the other party to the administrative disposition, and even in cases where a teleological interpretation is allowed taking into account the legislative intent, purpose, etc. of such administrative laws and regulations, it shall not go beyond the ordinary meaning of the text and text (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du47686, Nov. 24, 2016)