2. Whether or not the provisions of Article 35 of the Administrative Appeals Act concerning the method of adjudication are applied to a decision made by the head of a local government on an objection to the imposition of fees for the use of public facilities of the local government;

(a) A person subject to a disposition imposing fees for the use of public facilities of a local government shall, if he is dissatisfied with the imposition or collection thereof, file an objection with the head of the local government concerned within sixty days after he is notified of such imposition or collection pursuant to the provisions of Articles 131(3), (4) and (5) and 127 of the Local Autonomy Act, and if he is dissatisfied with the decision of the head of the local government concerned, file an administrative lawsuit with the competent high court within sixty days after he is notified of such decision without filing an

B. When the head of a local government makes a decision on an objection against the above disposition imposing the fee as referred to in subparagraph (a), it is not necessary to comply with the provisions of Article 35 of the Administrative Appeals Act concerning the method of ruling.

Articles 127, 131(3), 131(4), and 131(5) of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 35 of the Administrative Appeals Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 74Nu195 delivered on November 11, 1975 (Gong1975, 8727) 76Nu167 delivered on October 29, 1976 (Gong1976, 9466) 84Nu268 delivered on January 29, 1985 (Gong1985, 380)

Attorney Ansan-do et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

The head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu1032 delivered on December 29, 1993

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Where a person who is subject to a disposition imposing fees for the use of public facilities of a local government has an objection to the imposition or collection thereof, he/she shall file an objection with the head of the local government within sixty days after he/she receives the notification thereof pursuant to Articles 131(3), (4) and (5) and 127 of the Local Autonomy Act, and where he/she is dissatisfied with the decision made by the head of the local government, he/she shall file an administrative litigation with the competent high court within sixty days after he/she receives the notification thereof without any need to file an administrative appeal again under the Administrative Appeals Act. In addition, the decision made by the head of the local government with regard

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the lawsuit of this case on December 21, 1992 by the defendant's ruling dismissing the above objection as to the plaintiff's objection as to the imposition of usage fees of this case. If the plaintiff was notified that the objection was dismissed on December 21, 1992, and the plaintiff was again filed the lawsuit of this case 60 days after the deadline for administrative litigation was passed since it had followed unnecessary procedures, such as again filing an administrative appeal to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, even though the plaintiff was notified that the above objection was dismissed on December 23, 1992, the main claim seeking cancellation on the ground that the disposition imposing usage fees was illegal is deemed illegal, and it is illegal as the defendant's dismissal ruling on the plaintiff's objection is not a separate administrative disposition, and thus the preliminary claim of this case was dismissed on the ground that it is unlawful, and in light of related evidence and records and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles of the Local Autonomy Act and the Administrative Appeals Act or the rules of evidence. Accordingly, the judgment below cannot be dismissed.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)