Criteria and method of imposing charges for causing traffic congestion and imposition thereof.

Comprehensively taking account of the relevant provisions such as Article 11-4 of the former Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4533 of Dec. 8, 1992) and Articles 9-5 through 9-9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13460 of Sept. 6, 191), it is reasonable to impose charges for causing traffic congestion based on the period during which a person subject to imposition owns a facility that causes traffic congestion during the unit period of one year prior to the base date of imposition, that is, the amount of charges imposed on each unit period due to traffic congestion on any one of the base periods, i.e., the base date of imposition, and the charges for causing traffic congestion shall not be imposed in accordance with the form of use of the facility, and the charges for causing traffic congestion shall be imposed

Article 11-4 (see current Article 21) of the former Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4533, Dec. 8, 1992); Articles 9-8 and 9-9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13460, Sep. 6, 1991)

Korea Teachers' Credit Union

The head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu20421 delivered on February 17, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the charges for causing traffic congestion is unlawful in light of the amount causing traffic congestion, that is, it is reasonable to impose the charges for causing traffic congestion by calculating the unit period according to the possession period of the facility that is the cause of traffic congestion during the one-year unit period prior to the base date, that is, one-year unit period of one-year unit period of one-year unit period of one-year unit period of one-year unit period of one-year unit of the base date of imposition, and the charges for causing traffic congestion cannot be imposed by considering the form of use of the facility and the traffic congestion itself as a factor causing traffic congestion. In addition, the charges for causing traffic congestion cannot be imposed by considering the form of use of the facility, and the charges for imposing traffic congestion is imposed by considering it as a factor causing traffic congestion. Thus, the part of the defendant's disposition of this case which the plaintiff calculated the charges by the imposition period from the date of original acquisition after construction and completion of the building of this case to the base date of imposition is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)