(a) Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act and Article 12 of the Ordinance on Collection of Shared Expenses by Beneficiaries of Urban Planning Projects shall apply to a prior week, which provides for appeal procedures

B. The meaning of the source of lawsuit filed as an objection against the disposition agency's adjudication on the objection that should be viewed as source

A. The purport of Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act, which is specifically stipulated in the source law, is to be interpreted as limiting the appeal procedure against the disposition of an implementer of an urban planning project to the source under the source law, as a matter of course, in the absence of special provisions in other Acts with respect to any unlawful and unfair disposition by an administrative agency, is to file a lawsuit under the source law, so Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act shall be interpreted as limited to the source of lawsuit under the source law. Therefore, even if it is delegated to enact a municipal ordinance concerning the collection of the share of the beneficiaries under the Urban Planning Act, the procedure for objection against the disposition of the share of the beneficiaries shall not be in violation of Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act as to the procedure for raising objection against

B. The objection filed by the plaintiffs to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor on November 29, 1980, notwithstanding its name, is the purport of the lawsuit pursuant to Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act. Thus, the defendant as the disposition agency should have sent it to the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, a superior administrative agency, not to decide on it. Therefore, this lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant's ruling of dismissal of complaint by the defendant on November 14, 1981 is not merely the purport of urging the plaintiffs to make the ruling on the lawsuit filed under the name of objection to November 29, 1980. Thus, if the appeal was filed on February 1, 1981, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do notified the plaintiffs of the dismissal of the lawsuit and notified them to the plaintiffs on March 4, 1981, and if it was filed on April 1, 1981, the lawsuit was lawfully filed within the period prescribed by the Administrative Litigation Act.

(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;

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Nu209 delivered on September 28, 1982

Plaintiff 1 and 8 others, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Jeonju Market

Gwangju High Court Decision 81Gu19 delivered on March 30, 1982

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

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined together.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court imposed a total of KRW 7,136,192 on the six parcels located in Jeonju-dong, Jeonju-si, pursuant to Article 65 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act and Article 56 of the Ordinance on the Collection of Beneficiary Charges for Urban Planning from May 4, 1979, and imposed a total of KRW 7,136,192, and the Plaintiffs received the notice of payment of the above charges on November 18, 1980, and notified the Defendant of the decision to dismiss it around that time, and the Plaintiffs raised a lawsuit against the Governor of Jeollabuk-do from May 14, 1981 to January 14, 198, and accordingly, the lower court determined that the Plaintiffs raised an objection under Article 18 of the Urban Planning Act and Article 19 of the same Ordinance cannot be deemed to have been legitimate, even if they did not object to the imposition of the charges on the beneficiaries under Article 19 of the same Ordinance.

2. In this regard, Article 65 (4) of the Urban Planning Act provides that matters necessary for the collection of the share of the beneficiary may be prescribed by the ordinance of the relevant organization of local autonomy. Accordingly, a person who is dissatisfied with the imposition of the share of the beneficiary under Article 12 may raise an objection within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice of payment. Meanwhile, Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act provides that a person who is dissatisfied with the imposition of the share of the beneficiary under Article 12 of the Urban Planning Act may bring an objection against the disposition of the implementer of the urban planning project under this Act may bring an action pursuant to the original law unless otherwise provided in other Acts. Thus, Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act provides that a person who is dissatisfied with the imposition of the share of the beneficiary under Article 12 of the Urban Planning Act shall be entitled to bring an action against the illegal and unfair disposition of the administrative agency, as a matter of course, the purport that Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act provides for the procedure of appeal against the disposition of the implementer of the urban planning project is limited to the source law.

Accordingly, although Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act provides that the disposition of the urban planning project operator shall be subject to a lawsuit under the source law as a procedure for objection, Article 12 of the Act on the Collection of the Shared Amount by the beneficiaries of the urban planning project at the time prior to the enactment of the Urban Planning Act is separately provided for the procedure for filing an objection, which is not an invalid provision in conflict with the Urban Planning Act (referring to Supreme Court Decision 82Nu209 delivered on September 28, 1982).

3. Accordingly, the objection filed by the plaintiffs to the defendant on November 29, 1980, notwithstanding its name, is the purport of the lawsuit under Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act. Thus, the defendant market as the disposition agency should have sent it to the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, a superior administrative agency, instead of making a decision on it. Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit filed on January 14, 1981 is not merely for the purport of urging the plaintiffs to make a ruling on the plaintiff's lawsuit filed in the name of objection to November 29, 1980. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit was not filed on February 1, 1981 after the Governor of Jeollabuk-do dismissed the lawsuit and notified it to the plaintiffs on March 4, 1981. The decision of the court below that the lawsuit was filed on April 1, 1981. Accordingly, this case was legally filed within the period prescribed by the Administrative Litigation Act (referring to Supreme Court Decision 82Nu216 delivered on October 12, 1982.).

4. Therefore, even though the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on this case within a lawful period of time through legitimate pre-trial procedure, the court below's rejection of this case's disposition is unlawful, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles under Article 88 of the Subdivision Act, nor by misunderstanding the legal principles under Article 12 of the Ordinance on Collection of Charges for Urban Planning Business Operators in Jeonju City, and by misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 12.

5. The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court which is the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)