[1] Whether the withdrawal and withdrawal of the notice of imposition of a fine for negligence by the competent authority may hinder the commencement and progress of the judgment on the fine for negligence (negative)

[2] Whether "standard market price of taxation" under Article 103 (4) [Attachment Table 14] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act can be acknowledged by a party's statement (affirmative)

[3] In a case where a court decides on a fine for negligence pursuant to the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, whether it is bound by the criteria for imposition inside the administrative agency (negative)

[1] If the court finds that a judgment imposing a fine for negligence is to be imposed on the court, the procedure is commenced ex officio pursuant to the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, and the notification or notification by the competent authority is only to urge the court to make an ex officio action. Thus, even if a notification or notification already made by the competent authority is withdrawn or withdrawn, the withdrawal or withdrawal cannot be an obstacle to the court's commencement and progress of a trial on a fine for negligence under the Non-Contentious Case

[2] Article 56-2 (1) 2 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of Jun. 1, 1992) and Article 103 (4) [Attachment Table 14] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13655 of May 30, 192), which provides the criteria for imposing the fine for negligence, include the amount equivalent to the standard market price of the taxable price of the goods calculated under [Attachment Table 14] or the standard market price of the goods at the time of the offense.

[3] In a trial on an administrative fine in accordance with the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, the court is not bound by the administrative litigation procedure to judge whether the administrative fine imposed by the competent administrative agency is appropriate, and the amount may be determined at its discretion by taking into account various persons such as motive, degree, and result within the maximum limit of the administrative fine prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, without being bound by the internal guidelines of the administrative agency. As long as the amount of the administrative fine determined by the court of appeal is made within the scope prescribed by the Act, so long as it is considerably unfair and unreasonable, it cannot be a legitimate ground for reappeal.

[1] Article 11 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act / [2] Article 56-2 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of Jun. 1, 1992), Article 103 (4) [Attachment Table 14] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13655 of May 30, 192), Article 248 (2) of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act / [3] Articles 11 and 248 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure

[1] Supreme Court Order 7Ma228 dated August 24, 197 (Gong1977, 10270) 94Ma1415 dated July 21, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2935) Supreme Court Order 94Ma283 dated July 26, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2955Ha, 2955) 96Ma1597 dated April 28, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1610) / [2] Supreme Court Order 70Ma799 dated December 29, 197 (Gong197, 1999) / [3] Supreme Court Order 60Ma2979 dated May 29, 1969 (Gong2975 decided May 29, 197; 197Mo29797 decided May 29, 1967)

Re-appellant

Seoul District Court Order 97Ra2811 dated August 31, 1998

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

For revocation of Notice by the Competent Authority

If the court finds that a judgment on the disposition of a fine for negligence is to be imposed on the court, the procedure is commenced ex officio under the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, and the notification or withdrawal of the competent authority's ex officio request is nothing more than demanding the court to make an ex officio request. Thus, even if a notification or withdrawal of notification already made by the competent authority after the fact is made, the withdrawal or withdrawal cannot be an obstacle to the commencement and progress of a trial on the fine for negligence by the court under the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Order 94Ma1415, Jul. 2

According to the records, on November 1, 1996, the head of Jongno-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 765,90 on the re-appellant on the ground of the violation of the Building Act, and the re-appellant raised an objection against this, and the procedure of trial on the administrative fine of this case was commenced on the wind that the head of the above-ro to notify the first instance court of its contents. On June 24, 1997, the above case is pending at the court below, and the head of Jongno-gu, upon the request of the National Ombudsman, cancelled the disposition of this case and notified the court below of its contents. However, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the imposition of a non-performance penalty of KRW 20,00,00 on the ground that the above case was in progress without permission of the re-appellant on the ground that the re-appellant extended the above trial procedure of this case without permission on December 31, 1991.

As to the amount of fines for negligence

Article 56-2 (1) 2 of the former Building Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13655 of May 30, 192) which provides the criteria for imposing the fine for negligence by delegation of the same provision or Article 56-2 (1) 2 of the former Building Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 1365 of May 30, 1992), or the "amount equivalent to the standard market price for taxation" of Article 103 (4) [Attachment 14] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act shall include the amount that the person in question is the standard market price for taxation at the time of the violation (see Supreme Court Order 70Ma799 of December 29, 1970). Meanwhile, in rendering a judgment on the fine for negligence pursuant to the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, the court is not an administrative litigation procedure to judge the propriety of the fine for negligence imposed by the competent administrative agency, and the amount may be determined at its discretion by considering various factors such as motive, degree and result within the upper limit of the fine for reexamination.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)