beta
Text
1. As limited to September 27, 2017 by the Defendant:
A. 32,118,290 won for causing traffic congestion to the Plaintiff Samsung C&T corporation.
Reasons
Details of the disposition
Plaintiff
Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “T&T”) operates the “Sacacacacacacacacacacacaca clubs located at the lower end of the Geum-gu, Busan, and the Plaintiff, an incorporated Busan P&T club (hereinafter referred to as the “Sacacacacium”) operates the “Sacacacacacac,” which is located at 112,00,000,000,000
On September 27, 2017, the Defendant imposed KRW 32,118,290,30,260, and 260,000 on the Plaintiff Samsung Heavy Industries on the charges of causing traffic congestion under Article 37(1) of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act and Article 3-3(1) [Attachment Table 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act by applying the traffic inducement factor (6.72) applicable to neighborhood living facilities, subdivisions, and golf driving range (the imposition area for Plaintiff Samsung Samsung C&T industry) attached to each of the above golf clubs as charges for causing traffic congestion from August 1, 2016 to July 31, 2017, on the Plaintiff Samsung C&T industry by applying Article 37(1) of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act and Article 3-3(1) [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) The Plaintiffs asserted an administrative appeal against the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Busan Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the said appeal on February 27, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] The defendant alleged that Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Gap evidence Nos. 2 (each number is included), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiffs' assertion was based on the premise that each of the relevant facilities of each golf course operated by the plaintiffs (hereinafter "each of the facilities of this case") falls under "finite life facilities" among "finite life facilities," but the disposition of this case was made under the premise that each of the facilities of this case falls under "finite life facilities". However, according to the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Building Act, each of the facilities of this case