Where the head of the Gu notifies the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor of the imposition of charges for road use, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor and the objection period.

If the head of Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City issues a notice of road usage fees in his/her name, but this notifies the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor's name, it cannot be deemed that the head of Jung-gu has been delegated by the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the head of Jung-gu has received the delegation of the above disposition. Therefore, in relation to the above disposition, an objection shall be raised to the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice under Article 16 of the

Article 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Collection of Road Occupancy Fees

Shinsung Development Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 78Gu49 delivered on September 30, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the provision of Article 43 of the Road Act, the road management agency may collect occupancy charges from the person who occupies and uses the road under the provision of Article 40 (Permit for Occupation and Use). (2) Article 35 (2) of the Road Act provides that matters necessary for tolls and collection shall be determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation in the case of national highways and by the Ordinance of the local government to which the road management agency concerned belongs in the case of other roads. Article 80-2 of the Road Act provides that an objection shall be collected from the person who occupies and uses the road without permission under the provision of Article 40 (Permit for Use and Use and Use. In this case, the method of collection shall be determined in the same manner as that of collection of road usage charges, and it shall be determined that the person who has an objection against the provision of Article 16 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Collection of Road occupation and Use Charges and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act shall be deemed to be unlawful within 30 days prior to the date of receipt of the notification. Thus, the court below's decision that there is no error of law as to apply the above 130 of the Road Act.

Therefore, the court below's decision that dismissed the lawsuit of this case as unlawful because it did not go through legitimate pre-trial procedure is just, and the above error of the court below does not affect any conclusion of the judgment, and it is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)