In case of imposing expenses on beneficiaries on roads installed by urban planning projects, legal provisions to be applied.

With respect to roads installed by urban planning projects, the provisions of Article 66 of the Road Act and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Collection of Charges for Road Beneficiaries, which have received the provisions, may be applied to the beneficiary charges, and the application of Article 56 (1) of the Enforcement Decree

Article 65 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 56 (1) of Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, Article 66 of the Road Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu288 delivered on April 27, 1982 82Nu101,102 Delivered on April 26, 1983

Plaintiff

Attorney Park Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Administrator of Jongno-gu et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu67,68 decided Nov. 28, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the beneficiary charges may be imposed on the road of this case, which was installed as an urban planning project in accordance with the interpretation of the law by the party members, by applying Article 66 of the Road Act and the provisions of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Collection of Charges on Road Beneficiaries, and therefore, the imposition of the charges shall be excluded from the application of Article 56 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, and the interpretation of the same Act shall not be deemed to

Since such interpretation of the law by the court below belongs to a party member's judgment, it is without merit.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below calculated the instant charges as KRW 697,97 as stated in the judgment of remanded by party members. In light of the records, there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles pointing out the grounds of appeal, or in the calculation.

The issue is groundless.

3. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged, based on evidence, that the land in this case is an urban redevelopment area under the Urban Redevelopment Act and its development project is in progress, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that it does not constitute an extremely unreasonable ground for the imposition of the charges in this case even if it complies with Article 11 subparagraph 6 of the above collection ordinance and Article 6 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act. In light of the records, the court below's decision is acceptable and there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)