(a) Whether river occupation and use fees can be deemed as the prescribed usage fees under Article 130 of the Local Autonomy Act, and whether Articles 128 and 130 of the Local Autonomy Act apply where a State river manager is a local government;

(b) Method of appeal regarding the imposition of river usage fees;

A. In light of the purport of the provisions of Articles 26, 27, and 29 of the Local Autonomy Act at the time of this Act, the occupation and use fees cannot be excluded under Article 130 of the Local Autonomy Act. Even if a state river is a local government, if the manager is a local government, the provisions of Articles 128 and 130 of the Local Autonomy Act concerning the rights of public facilities of the local government apply.

(b) Where a person is dissatisfied with a disposition imposing river usage fees, he/she shall file an objection with the head of the local government who has imposed a disposition within ten days from the date on which he/she receives the notice of the disposition, and where he/she is dissatisfied with the decision on the objection, he/she shall file an administrative litigation within one month from

Seoul History Industries Partnership (Attorney Go Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 74Gu196 delivered on June 15, 1976

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

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

According to the provisions of Article 7 of the Local Autonomy Act, local governments may enact ordinances concerning their affairs within the scope of Acts and subordinate statutes, and according to the provisions of Articles 26, 27, and 29 of the River Act at the time of permission, local governments which are river managers can provide for the usage fees and the method of purification thereof as ordinances of the relevant local governments, so Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is river managers, established the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance for the occupation and use fees, etc. of rivers (including usage fees) pursuant to the above delegation provisions of the same Act, and if it is recognized that there is an illegality or error in the imposition and collection of river usage fees (including occupancy fees) of the defendant under this Ordinance, local governments may raise an objection to the head of the relevant local government within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice of the decision, and if the head of the relevant local government is dissatisfied with this, it can be excluded from the purpose of Article 130 of the Local Autonomy Act, and the provisions of Article 28 of the Local Autonomy Act concerning the occupation and use fees of the river can be excluded from the above provisions of Article 130 of the River Act.

Therefore, if the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the disposition imposing fees for the use of a river as stated in this case, he must raise an objection to the defendant within 10 days from the date he is notified of the disposition, and if he is dissatisfied with the defendant's decision on the objection, it is unnecessary to bring an action again after he is notified of the decision, but the plaintiff filed an action with the Prime Minister on the 24th day of the 10th day of the 196th day of the 24th day of the 1974, which was notified of the decision, but the 6.3th day of the 20th day of the 196th day of the 20th day of the 196th day of the 20th day of the 196th day of the 196th day of the 20th day of the 196th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 19

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. 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 Han-jin (Presiding Justice)