(a) The period for filing an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of a disposition imposing road occupation and use fees by a local government on illegal grounds;

B. Whether a ruling dismissing an objection raised by the head of a local government to the Plaintiff is deemed a ruling dismissing the objection.

(a) A person who is subject to a disposition of imposition of fees for the use of the public facilities of a local government shall, in case where he deems that there is any illegality or error in the imposition or collection thereof, file an objection with the head of the local government within 10 days from the date on which he receives the notification under the provisions of Article 130 (3) and (5) of the Local Autonomy Act, and in case where he is dissatisfied with the decision of the head of the local government, file an administrative litigation with the court within one month from the date on which he receives the notification under the provisions of

B. A reply to the objection filed by the Plaintiff company against the objection filed by the Defendant market should be deemed to be a ruling dismissing the above objection.

Korean Electric Power Co., Ltd., Counsel for the business start-up and river area

Attorney Park Jae-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 74Gu44 delivered on July 3, 1974

The original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

In light of the records, the plaintiff company received a notification of the imposition of road occupation and use fees as of August 28, 1973 on August 30, 1973 and rejected the notification, and filed a request for examination of the above disposition with the defendant Mayor on September 7, 1999. The above request for examination was rejected on September 15, 199. The defendant market again submitted a written objection against the above disposition to the defendant Mayor on October 12, 199. However, the plaintiff company received an objection from the defendant market on October 16, 199. The plaintiff company filed a lawsuit against the above disposition to the Prime Minister via the defendant market via the defendant market which was the disposition authority on November 14, 1974, and filed a lawsuit on December 11, 1974.

However, according to the provisions of Articles 130 (3), (4), and (5) of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 127 of the same Act, when it is recognized that there is any illegality or error in the imposition or collection of fees for the use of the public facilities of the local government, the person who is subject to the disposition of imposition of fees for the use of the local government shall raise an objection to the head of the local government within ten days from the date of receipt of the notification, and if there is an objection against the decision of the head of the local government, he shall file an administrative lawsuit with the court within one month from the date of receipt of the notification of the decision under Article 5 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the request for review against the defendant market of the plaintiff company on September 7, 1973 shall be deemed to be an objection under Article 130 (3) of the above Local Autonomy Act, and therefore, the rejection of the request for review on the ground that there is no ground for the request for review. The time of objection to the defendant market as of October 16, 1973 shall be deemed to be dismissed within the above period of the plaintiff company.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s principal claim seeking revocation on the ground that the above disposition imposing occupation fees is illegal is already illegal and has already been dismissed prior to the judgment on the merits, as it was in violation of the legal principles as to the period for filing an administrative litigation, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the period for filing an administrative litigation, and thus, reversed the original judgment and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)