Whether a fine for negligence imposed and collected under Article 130(2) of the Local Autonomy Act is stated in a notice of imposition of a fine for negligence and whether a fine for negligence is imposed by a notice of payment

The imposition and collection of a fine for negligence under Article 130 (2) of the Local Autonomy Act shall be based on the procedures under the Local Tax Act. Thus, the imposition and collection written notice stating the issue of a fine for negligence to be paid, the issue of a fine for negligence, the name and address of a person liable for payment, the amount of a fine for negligence, the payment period, the place of payment, the method of remedy in the event of an illegality or error in the imposition by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Articles 1 (1) 5 and 25 (1) of the Local Tax Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree thereof, and the provisions of the Local Tax Act and the ordinances of the relevant local government shall be based on the imposition and collection notice

Article 130 of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 1 (1) 5 of the Local Tax Act, Article 25 (1) of the Local Tax Act, Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Nu723 Decided October 28, 1986 (Gong1986, 3129) 90Nu9834 Decided June 11, 1991

Korea New Public Corporation

The head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Gwangju High Court Decision 91Gu635 delivered on December 26, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

Article 127 of the Local Autonomy Act provides that a local government may collect a user fee for the use of public facilities or for the use of property, and Article 130 of the same Act provides that matters concerning the collection of user fee, commission or contribution shall be determined by the Municipal Ordinance, and the provisions concerning the imposition of a fine for negligence may be prescribed by the Municipal Ordinance within five times the amount exempted from the collection of the user fee, commission or other contribution by deceit or other unlawful means. The provisions concerning the disposition of a fine for negligence shall apply mutatis mutandis to the procedure of the disposition of the fine for negligence. Article 131(2) of the same Act provides that the collection of a user fee, commission or contribution shall be governed by the example of the collection of local taxes. Thus, the imposition and collection of a fine for negligence as provided in Article 130(2) of

Therefore, in imposing the above administrative fine, by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 1(1)5 and Article 25(1) of the Local Tax Act and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree thereof, the issue of the administrative fine to be paid, the provisions of the Act and the ordinances of the relevant local government, the person liable for payment's address, name, amount of the administrative fine, the payment period, place of payment, remedy methods in the event of an unlawful or erroneous imposition, etc. In accordance with the notice of payment (Evidence A) record, as recognized by the court below, the defendant received and used the 65 U.S. foot receipt form in the diameter of the Sinju City by replacing it with the 75 U.S. foot receipt book in the form of 75 U.S. dollars in the form of the 190s.7,8,99, the amount of the administrative fine to be imposed, the payment period, the place for payment, the amount of the administrative fine to be imposed, the amount of the administrative fine to be imposed, the due amount of the administrative fine to be imposed, and the payment notice.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles. The argument is without merit.

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.