(a) unlike the provisions of Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 12 of the Ordinance on Collection of Charges by Beneficiaries of Urban Planning Projects in a prior week, which prescribes procedures for appeal

(b) Whether a written objection constitutes a source of the lawsuit without attaching the title of the source of the lawsuit;

C. The decision of the disposition agency on the objection to be deemed a source of lawsuit and the meaning of a source of lawsuit on the decision

A. Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act provides that a person may file a lawsuit against a disposition by an urban planning project operator under the same Act shall be construed to the effect that the method of appeal against the disposition by the urban planning project operator may only be filed pursuant to the Acts of origin. Thus, even if Article 65 (4) of the same Act delegates matters necessary for the collection of the share of the beneficiary with respect to the urban planning project to the relevant organization, it shall not be possible to enact any ordinances in conflict with Article 88 of the same Act, which are different from Article 12 of the Ordinance on the Collection of Shared Charges by the beneficiary of Urban Planning Project at the preceding week, which are different from Article 88 of the same Act.

B. Since it is interpreted as a written act that does not require a strict form, when a person whose rights or interests have been infringed by an illegal or unjust administrative disposition submits a document to the competent administrative agency seeking cancellation or modification of the disposition within the statutory period, it shall not be deemed as a source of lawsuit stipulated in Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act without regard to the title. Thus, the plaintiff's written objection seeking cancellation or modification of the disposition imposing the beneficiary's charges is a source of lawsuit.

C. The written objection of this case filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, who is the disposition authority, is obvious in accordance with the purport of the pleading that the Defendant seeks revocation or alteration of the disposition imposing the Defendant’s charge. Thus, the Defendant should consider it as the source of lawsuit and have transferred the written objection to the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, which is the immediately superior administrative authority. Nevertheless, even if the Defendant rendered a direct decision on the same objection, it is unclear that it is not a new source of lawsuit, and it is nothing more than the purport of demanding the decision of the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, which is a ruling authority for the objection to be deemed the source of lawsuit, rather than a new source

(a) Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 12 of the Ordinance on Collection of Charges by Beneficiaries of Urban Planning Projects on the Jeonju City Urban Planning Projects; Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 5(c) of the Sub-Committee Act;

Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Nu209 Decided September 28, 1982 Da. 65Nu113,118 Decided January 25, 196 Ga.B. Decision 82Nu186 Decided October 12, 1982

Plaintiff

Jeonju Market

Gwangju High Court Decision 81Gu27 delivered on March 30, 1982

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On November 18, 1980, the judgment of the court below is that the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff on May 18, 1980, which had been executed from May 4, 1975 by the defendant 1 to the 19th 5th 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 4th 2nd 132th m2nd m2nd m2nd m2nd 132th m2nd m2nd m2nd m2nd m2nd m2nd m2nd m3th m3th m3th m2nd m3th m3th m3th 1980, and the plaintiff filed an objection against the above m2nd m3th m2nd m3th m2nd m3th m2nd m3th m2nd m3th m2nd m3th m3th m200 m2nd m222nd m.

2. Article 1(1) of the Action Act provides that a person whose rights or interests have been infringed due to an illegal or unjust disposition by an administrative agency may file a lawsuit for correction in principle, and in addition, Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act provides that the method of filing a lawsuit against a disposition by an urban planning project operator under this Act may only be filed pursuant to the Action Act. Thus, the method of filing a lawsuit against the disposition by the urban planning project operator under this Act is interpreted to the effect that the method of filing a lawsuit can only be filed pursuant to the Action Act. Thus, Article 65(4) of the same Act provides that matters necessary for the collection of the beneficiary charges with respect to an urban planning project shall be prescribed by ordinances of the relevant local government, even if the former city planning project operator entrusted the matters to be prescribed by ordinances of the relevant local government, the procedure of filing a appeal against the imposition and collection of the beneficiary charges cannot be prescribed by ordinances in conflict with Article 88 of the above Act. Thus, it cannot be concluded that Article 12 of the Ordinance on the Collection of Beneficiaries Charges of Urban Planning Projects is invalid (see the Supreme Court Decision

3. The plaintiff filed an objection in accordance with the judgment of the court below in relation to the disposition of the beneficiary charges of the defendant. The plaintiff is interpreted as a document act which does not require a strict form as a source of administrative litigation. Thus, when a document is submitted from a person whose rights or interests have been infringed due to illegal or unjust administrative disposition to the administrative agency for the cancellation or modification of such disposition within the statutory period, it shall not be viewed as a source of lawsuit under Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 65Nu113-18 delivered on January 25, 196). Further, according to Articles 2 and 3 (2) of the 2 and Article 3 of the 2 of the 2 of the 1966 party Act, the plaintiff filed an objection directly to the superior administrative agency via the disposition administrative agency, but if the 2nd party's submission agency is wrong, the plaintiff filed the objection to the defendant, who is the disposition agency, is obviously a purport of seeking the cancellation or modification of the above disposition. Thus, the defendant's objection should have been considered as a transfer to the ruling office of Jeollabuk.

Nevertheless, the defendant made a direct decision on the objection, but it was not significant, and there was no decision by the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, which is a ruling authority for the objection that should be dealt with as a source until then. Thus, the plaintiff's filing of a lawsuit against the above decision by the defendant, not a new source of lawsuit but a new source of lawsuit, urged the decision by the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, which is a ruling authority for the objection that should be viewed as source of lawsuit, to urge the decision by the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, which is a ruling authority for the objection that should be

Therefore, the above measures by the court below are deemed to have committed an unlawful act by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the source of action and Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act, and it is reasonable to discuss the appeal. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)