A. Whether municipal ordinances of local governments violate Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act with respect to the procedure for raising objections to the collection and disposition of beneficiary charges (negative)

B. Whether Article 12 of the Act on Collection of Beneficiary Charges for Urban Planning Projects at the previous week goes against Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act and becomes invalid

A. Although Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act provides for the procedure of filing a lawsuit in accordance with the source law as a matter of course with respect to the original illegal or unreasonable disposition of an administrative agency, it is interpreted that the procedure of filing a lawsuit in accordance with the source law is limited to the source of lawsuit pursuant to the source law, so even though Article 65(4) of the Urban Planning Act delegates matters necessary for the collection of beneficiary charges to be prescribed by the ordinance of the pertinent local government, it shall not be deemed that Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act provides for the procedure of filing a lawsuit in accordance with the source law with respect to the procedure of filing a objection against the collection of beneficiary charges.

B. Article 12 of the Ordinance on Collection of Shared Expenses by a Beneficiary may raise an objection within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice of payment to the person who has an objection to the imposition of shared expenses by a beneficiary, and after the due date, it cannot raise an objection after the due date. With respect to the institution which seeks the examination and ruling of the administrative disposition directly by the disposition administrative agency except for the disposition by the Prime Minister, Vice Minister, or the direct subordinate agency of the President, it can be known that the objection under Article 12 of the above Ordinance is the institution which seeks the correction of the disposition to the disposition to the disposition administrative agency. Thus, if the above procedure of objection is viewed as protecting the rights of the people, it cannot be denied that the procedure of raising an objection is a system of objection which is less than the procedure of seeking correction by the senior administrative agency's exercise of supervisory authority, and it cannot be viewed as invalid within 3 months from the date of receipt of the notice of objection under Article 12 of the above Ordinance, and it cannot be viewed as invalid within 10 months from the date of filing of the appeal.

Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 65(4) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 12 of the Ordinance on Collection of Shared Amount by Beneficiary of Urban Planning Project on Jeonju

[Judgment of the court below]

Jeonju Market

Gwangju High Court Decision 81Gu25 delivered on March 30, 1982

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to the disposition imposing the beneficiary charges of this case, which the defendant made on January 21, 1981, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Governor of Jeollabuk-do branch office of this case on February 19 of that year, but it confirmed that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the revocation of the disposition imposing the beneficiary charges of this case on March 30 of that year after being sentenced to the ruling of dismissal of 3.10 of 4.10 of that year, and pursuant to Article 65 (4) of the Urban Planning Act, matters necessary for the collection of the beneficiary charges shall be prescribed by the ordinance of the relevant local government if the project operator is the head of Si/Gun/Do governor, and pursuant to Article 12 of the Ordinance on the Collection of the beneficiary Charges of Urban Planning Project at the time of the previous week enacted, a person who is dissatisfied with the imposition of the charges cannot raise an objection after 30 days from the date of receiving the notice of payment. Thus, in order to raise an objection against the beneficiary charges of this case, the plaintiff was dismissed the previous lawsuit.

2. However, Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act provides, however, that a lawsuit may be filed pursuant to the source law with respect to the disposition of an executor of an urban planning project under this Act, unless otherwise specifically provided for in other Acts, it is naturally possible to file a lawsuit with respect to any unlawful or unreasonable disposition of the administrative agency. However, Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act provides, in particular, that the procedure for filing a lawsuit pursuant to the source law is limited to the source of a lawsuit under the source law. Therefore, even if Article 65 (4) of the Urban Planning Act delegates matters necessary for the collection of the beneficiary charges to the local government, it shall not be deemed that Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act provides for the procedure for filing a lawsuit with respect to the procedure for filing a complaint with respect to the collection of the beneficiary charges.

However, Article 12 of the Act provides that a person who has an objection to the imposition of the charge by the beneficiary of the previous city urban planning project in this case, which was enacted by the delegation of Article 65 (4) of the Urban Planning Act, may raise an objection within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice of payment, and may not raise an objection upon the lapse of the above date. In comparison with the objection raised by the source under the Action Act, which is the procedure of objection under Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act, and the procedure of objection under Article 12 of the above Ordinance, the source of lawsuit under the above Action Act, except for the disposition by the Prime Minister, Vice Minister, or the direct superior administrative agency under the direct jurisdiction of the President, is an institution that seeks to review and decide the administrative disposition as an exercise of supervisory authority against the disposition administrative agency, and the objection under Article 12 of the above Ordinance

These two forms of appeals are different in that they are aimed at the proper operation of administration and the protection of citizens' rights, as a pre-trial procedure to correct illegal or unreasonable administrative dispositions. However, from the perspective of the protection of citizens' rights, the appeal procedure, which is expected to go against the disposition administrative agency's own reflection and inventory, cannot be denied that the appeal procedure lacks its function compared to the appeal procedure that seeks correction by exercising the supervisory authority of the higher administrative agency.

Therefore, although Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act provides for the procedure of appeal to correct illegal or unreasonable dispositions by the urban planning project operator, it is clear that Article 12 of the former City Ordinance excludes the above procedure of appeal and separately provides the procedure of appeal, it is contrary to the Urban Planning Act, and Article 12 of the above Ordinance does not regard it as invalid.

3. However, if the provision of Article 12 of the Ordinance at the time of the preceding week is not excluded from the procedure of filing a lawsuit under Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act, but can be seen as being prepared by the prior stage prior to the filing of the lawsuit, it is not necessary to regard it as null and void unless there is any disadvantage in the exercise of the right of filing a lawsuit.

However, since Article 12 of the above-mentioned City Ordinance stipulates that an appeal shall be filed within 30 days from the date on which an administrative disposition is known, an appeal shall be filed within one month from the date on which the plaintiff becomes aware of the fact that an administrative disposition is taken, the appeal shall be filed within 30 days from the date on which the notice of payment of the charge is received. If an objection is filed, the period for filing an appeal is reduced or the period for filing an appeal may be reduced or the period for filing an appeal shall be affected by the disadvantage that may be caused by the exercise of the right of filing a lawsuit, there

4. Ultimately, the plaintiff's filing of a lawsuit in accordance with the source law against the disposition of the beneficiary charges of this case by the defendant was lawful pre-trial procedure, but the court below rejected the lawsuit by judging that the lawsuit did not go through legitimate pre-trial procedure as seen above, and it is reasonable to interpret Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act, and to interpret Article 12 of the Ordinance on Collection of the Beneficiary Charges of Urban Planning in Jeonju City, and to discuss this point.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court for further proceedings. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young, Kim So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young