[1] Whether fees can be collected in a case where a local government’s office work is concurrently for a specific person (affirmative)

[2] Whether a local government can collect fees for the affairs of accepting applications for participation in competitive bidding or acceptance of applications for negotiated contracts or written estimates (affirmative)

[1] The purport of Article 128(1) of the Local Autonomy Act is not to allow a local government to collect fees only when a local government’s office work is for a specific person, but to allow a local government to collect fees also when a local government’s office work is for a specific person at the same time.

[2] When a local government as a private economic entity concludes a contract with a resident, etc., the affairs to be determined by the other party to the contract shall be considered as a whole for the local government itself. However, in the case of a competitive tender by means of determining the other party to the contract, the affairs to receive an application for participation in the tender from a person who intends to participate in the tender or to receive a written estimate from a person who intends to participate in a negotiated contract at the same time as the affairs for the local government itself, and the affairs to receive an application for a negotiated contract or a written estimate from a person who intends to participate in the tender at the same time as the affairs for the local government itself, or a person who intends to enter into

[1] Articles 15, 128(1), and 130(1) of the Local Autonomy Act / [2] Articles 128(1) and 130(1) of the Local Autonomy Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da21253 delivered on October 14, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3456)

(Attorney Yu-won, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gangwon-do Crossing-gun (Law Firm Mine name, Attorneys Lee Young-dae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

August 25, 1998

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. The following facts as to the circumstances, etc. of the resolution of the instant case do not conflict between the parties.

A. On February 27, 1998, the defendant passed a resolution on February 27, 1998 on the amendment of the Ordinance for Collection of Charges for Certification, etc. of Crossing (hereinafter referred to as "the amendment of this case") and transferred the same date to the head of the Crossing Gun. On May 25, 1998, the Crossing Gun received a request for reconsideration from the plaintiff on March 17, 1998, and ordered the plaintiff to collect fees for a negotiated contract application and estimate, among the amendment of this case, to collect fees, shall be limited to affairs not for a specific person, but for collection of fees, and thus, the defendant requested the defendant to re-resolution on March 18, 1998, with the same contents as the result of the National Assembly on May 2, 1998, and the plaintiff transferred the same to the head of the Crossing Gun on May 25, 1998, but did not directly file a lawsuit against the head of the Gun.

B. The draft of the amended Municipal Ordinance of this case provides that a fee of KRW 10,000 per case shall be collected from the application for participation in the tendering procedure and the application for free contract or estimate thereof.

2. We examine the violation of the Ordinance of this case.

Article 128 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that a local government may collect fees for its affairs if the affairs of the local government concerned are for a specific person; Article 130 (1) of the same Act provides that matters concerning the collection of fees shall be prescribed by municipal ordinances; Article 15 of the same Act provides that a local government may enact municipal ordinances concerning its affairs within the scope of statutes; Provided, That in the event that matters concerning the restriction on the rights of residents or the imposition of obligations on residents or penal provisions are prescribed, delegation of Acts shall be required. Of the draft of the amended Municipal Ordinance of this case, the part where a fee of KRW 10,000 per case shall be collected for a free contract application or estimate among the matters concerning the imposition of obligations by residents and delegation of delegation under Article 130 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act is legitimate if such part violates the provisions of Article 128 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act, which provides that the

However, the purport of Article 128 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act is not to allow local governments to collect fees only when the affairs of the local government are affairs for a specific person, but to allow local governments to collect fees also when the affairs are affairs for the local government itself (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da21253, Oct. 14, 1997). When a local government makes a contract with residents, etc. as a private economic entity, the affairs to determine the contracting party shall be deemed to be affairs for the local government itself in full view of the affairs to determine the contracting party. However, in the case of competitive bidding as a method to determine the contracting party, the affairs to receive a request for participation from a person who intends to participate in the bidding or to enter into a negotiated contract from a person who intends to enter into a negotiated contract from a person who intends to enter into a negotiated contract or to enter into a negotiated contract from a person who intends to participate in the bidding at the same time as the affairs for the local government itself, and therefore, the part of the amended Ordinance does not violate Article 128 (1) of the Local Autonomy Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which argues the validity of the resolution on the amendment bill of this case, is dismissed without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the burden of litigation costs.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)