(a) Validity of the Ordinance on Collection of Charges by Beneficiaries of Gwangju City Urban Planning Project, which prescribes different procedures for filing an objection from Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act (negative);

B. The validity of a source of lawsuit filed with the lapse of the filing period of an invalid municipal ordinance (affirmative)

(a) Even if the Ordinance on Collection of Shared Amount by Beneficiary of Gwangju City Urban Planning Project is delegated under the Urban Planning Act, it may not be prepared in violation of Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act, which limits the procedure for objection to the source of lawsuit under the Sub-Appeal Act, so otherwise, Article 20 of the Ordinance on Collection of Shared Amount by Beneficiary of Gwangju City Urban Planning Project, which prescribes that an objection shall be filed within 10

(b) Even if the ten-day filing period, which is stipulated in the Ordinance on Collection of Charges by Beneficiaries of Gwangju City Urban Planning Project in violation of Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act, is raised after the lapse of the ten-day filing period, the filing of the objection shall be deemed as a lawsuit under Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act if the filing of the objection is filed within the period stipulated by the Sub-Appeal Act, and shall be deemed as complying

(a) Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act;

Supreme Court Decision 65Nu113-118 decided Jan. 25, 1966, Supreme Court Decision 66Nu51 decided Jun. 20, 1967; 80Nu482 Decided June 8, 1982

Plaintiff

The head of Dong-si in Gwangju

Gwangju High Court Decision 81Gu78 delivered on June 15, 1982

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below after remanding the case, the court below determined that the defendant raised an objection against the defendant on December 25 of the same year to the plaintiff on May 4 of the same year as the beneficiary charges due to the extension of the city planning project on May 27 of the same year, which was completed around November 27 of the same year, and pursuant to Article 65 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act and Article 56 of the Ordinance on Collection of the Beneficiary Charges for Gwangju City Urban Planning Project, the plaintiff-owned 35 mbbbes above ( Address 1 omitted) 4,046, 236 mbbes above ( Address 2 omitted) 1, 62,968 m2 and the plaintiff received the above payment notice of the charges on December 25 of the same year, and pursuant to Article 65 of the Urban Planning Act, the head of the Gun or the head of the Gun, who is the beneficiary of the city planning project, can file an objection against the above amendment of the charges on January 11, 20 of the above Ordinance.

2. Article 65 (4) of the Urban Planning Act provides that a person who is dissatisfied with the imposition of charges under Article 20 may raise an objection within 10 days from the date of receipt of payment notice, and Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act provides that a person who is dissatisfied with the imposition of charges by the beneficiary of the Gwangju City Urban Planning Project may bring an objection against the disposition of the urban planning project operator under this Act, unless otherwise provided in other Acts, a person may bring an objection against the original illegal disposition of the administrative agency, as a matter of course, unless otherwise provided in other Acts, a person may bring an action under the original Act. Thus, Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act provides that the procedure of objection against the disposition of the urban planning project operator who is specifically named as the procedure of raising an objection to the disposition of the urban planning project operator under the original Act shall be limited to the source of appeal under the original Act, so even if the urban planning project operator is delegated with the collection of the charges by the beneficiary under the Urban Planning Act, the procedure of appeal against the imposition of the charges by the beneficiary shall not be separately prescribed in Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's objection filed against the defendant on January 11, 1980 is the purport of the lawsuit under Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act, regardless of its title. Thus, the Gwangju City Mayor, a disposition agency, should have sent it to the Jeonnam-do Governor, a superior administrative agency, not to make a decision on this matter. The plaintiff's plaintiff's lawsuit filed with the Gwangju City Mayor on January 22, 1980, shall be deemed to be the purport of urging the plaintiff to make a judgment on the plaintiff's lawsuit filed under the name of objection in January 11, 1980. Thus, in the case of this case where it is obvious that the plaintiff submitted a written objection to the defendant on January 11, 1980 to the defendant and submitted the written objection to the defendant on January 22, 1980, while the plaintiff raised the plaintiff to the Gwangju City Mayor on January 22, 1980.

4. Therefore, although the defendant's disposition on the imposition of the beneficiary charges against the plaintiff was filed by a legitimate source of lawsuit, and the lawsuit in this case is lawful due to the transfer of legitimate procedure, the court below's rejection of the lawsuit in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of Article 88 of the Walman Urban Planning Act and erroneous in the misapprehension of the validity of Article 20 of the Ordinance on Collection of the beneficiary charges of Gwangju City Urban Planning Project. Thus, there is a reason for raising an appeal to this effect.

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

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