beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reason why the court used this part of the disposition is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the second and sixth " October 17, 2016" is deemed to be " October 7, 2016." As such, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part is cited as it is.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The former Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 14944, Oct. 24, 2017; hereinafter “former Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act”).
Article 37(2) of the Act provides, “The unit charges and traffic inducement coefficient shall be determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in consideration of the number of users, sales, traffic congestion, or the use of facilities, etc., and the Mayor may adjust the unit charges and traffic inducement coefficient by up to 100/100, taking into account the location, size, characteristics, etc. of facilities, as prescribed by Ordinance of the relevant local government.” However, the former Ordinance on the Reduction, etc. of Traffic Inducement Charges in Incheon Metropolitan City (amended by Ordinance of Incheon Metropolitan City, Sept. 26, 2016; hereinafter “instant Ordinance”).
(2) Article 37(2) of the former Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act provides that “The purpose of this Act is to distinguish the unit charges and traffic inducement coefficient only depending on the size and characteristics of the facility, but does not differentiate between the location of the facility and the external area.” This also goes against the delegation of the above legal provision that considers all the location, size, and characteristics of the facility. This also goes against the principle of equality, as the degree of traffic inducement is applied to other facilities by uniform standards depending on the location of the facility. Therefore, the instant Ordinance has no validity, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.