[1] The validity of Article 130 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act, which delegates the rate of usage fees for public facilities to the ordinances, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Collection of User Fees for Sports Facilities enacted pursuant thereto (effective)

[2] Whether the provision of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Collection of Fees for the Use of Sports Facilities that uniformly stipulates the rate of the fee for the use of sports facilities revenue to be 25% (effective)

[1] Article 5 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Collection of Fees for Sports Facilities, which stipulates the rate of fees, includes matters concerning the collection of user fees by the Municipal Ordinance under Article 130 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act, cannot be deemed as a invalid provision which was enacted without the ground of delegation of the Act. The fact that the local government delegated the rate of user fees for public facilities managed by the local government to the Municipal Ordinance, which is the representative organ of the residents, instead of determining the rate of user fees for public facilities managed by the local government, which is the autonomous legislative body of the local council, cannot be deemed as null and void Article 130 (1)

[2] Since Article 5 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Collection of Fees for Sports Facilities (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Collection of Fees for Sports Facilities”) of the Ordinance on the Collection of Fees for Sports Facilities separately collects fees for sports facilities other than exclusive use fees and uniformly sets the rate of fees for sports facilities by 25% without considering the time of use, number of users, method of use, etc., it shall not be deemed null and void since Article 5 of the same Ordinance violates the principle of equality or sets the rate unfairly high.

[1] Articles 127 and 130 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 5 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Collection of Fees for Sports Facilities / [2] Article 2 of the Civil Act, Article 5 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Collection of Fees for Sports Facilities

Taewon Arts Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Order 97Ra15 dated April 19, 1997

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. As to the first ground for reappeal

Article 127 of the Local Autonomy Act provides that local governments may collect user fees for the use of public facilities or for the use of property. Article 130 (1) of the same Act provides that matters concerning the collection of user fees, fees, or contributions shall be prescribed by municipal ordinances only, which shall be delegated to municipal ordinances without setting the scope thereof. Article 5 (1) of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Collection of User Fees for Sports Facilities delegated by the above provisions provides that where exclusive users issue admission tickets, 20 percent of the total admission income shall be collected as user fees, and 2.5 percent of the total admission income shall be collected for sports events or professional games. (1) Article 130 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that "the collection of user fees that shall be prescribed by municipal ordinances" includes matters concerning the rate of user fees, so it cannot be deemed that Article 5 of the above Ordinance which provides for the rate of user fees has been enacted without any ground for delegation of Acts, and thus, Article 130 (2) of the Local Autonomy Act does not provide for the rate of user fees for the exclusive use of sports facilities as invalid.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no reason to oppose it.

2. As to the second ground for reappeal

The decision of the court below on the fairness of administrative act is just to reject the argument of the re-appellant that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City does not have any claim for payment of insurance money, and it is clear that it is not a ground for the re-appellant's application for provisional disposition of this case due to the fairness of the disposition imposing usage fees.

3. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)