Nature of Article 34(1) of the River Act, which prescribes the reduction of occupation fees, etc. (=Optional reduction or exemption provision)

Article 34(1) of the River Act provides that when an occupation or use of a river is for public use or public interest when the occupation or use of the river is for a profit-making project, the occupation or use of the river may be reduced or exempted. However, Article 30 of the former River Act provides that when the occupation or use of the river is for public use or public interest, the occupation or use of the river shall not be collected.

Article 34 (1) of the River Act

The Namwon Farmland Improvement Association

South Won-si Market

Gwangju High Court Decision 84Gu38 delivered on November 12, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the provisions of Article 33 of the River Act, a river management agency may collect fees for collecting river products and fees for river occupancy and use (such as occupation and use fees) from a person who has obtained permission under Article 25 of the Act (Paragraph 1), and in collecting the above occupation and use fees, a Do Governor shall be deemed to be a management agency (Paragraph 2), and an amount equivalent to the occupation and use fees from a person who occupies or uses a river without permission (Paragraph 3) may be collected as unjust enrichment (Paragraph 4), and the amount, collection method, etc. of the above occupation and use fees shall be determined by the Municipal Ordinance (Paragraph 4). Therefore, in collecting the occupation and use fees of the river, which are the rivers to be directly located, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do having jurisdiction over the location of the river shall be deemed to be the management agency for collecting the occupation and use fees of the river, which are the rivers to be directly located, and thus, the disposition taken by the manager of the river facilities established in Jeollabuk-do for the purpose of collecting the occupation and use fees of the river.

2. Article 158-4 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, which is cited by theories, is only a provision on the manager of farmland improvement facilities under the same Act, and there is this provision, so that it is not a complaint to the authority of a river management agency under the River Act, and that the above Promotion Act should be applied first to the River Act, cannot be employed as an independent opinion, and the case of a party member in the opinion of the lawsuit is not appropriate.

3. Article 34(1) of the River Act provides that the management agency may reduce or exempt the occupation and use fees, etc. pursuant to Article 33 if the occupation and use of a river is for a nonprofit business for public use, public use, or other public interest in cases where the occupation and use of a river is for the purpose of public use or public interest in accordance with Article 25 of the River Act. However, the purport of Article 30 of the former River Act is different from that of collection of occupation and use fees when the occupation and use of a river is for the purpose of public use or public interest, and therefore, it is also without merit.

4. It is clear that this case was imposed on the river occupancy fee for the year 1982 pursuant to the above Ordinance of Jeollabuk-do pursuant to subparagraph 1216 of Article 1216 of the Ordinance of Jeollabuk-do, and the theory that this case was retroactively imposed in violation of non-taxable practices such as the theory

5. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below cannot be viewed as a violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or a mistake of facts or a omission of judgment.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)