(a) unlike the provisions of Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 12 of the Ordinance on Collection of Charges by Beneficiaries of Urban Planning Projects in a prior week, which prescribes procedures for appeal

(b) Abstract of written applications and conversion to the source of a lawsuit filed for objection;

C. The decision of the disposition agency on the objection to be deemed a source of lawsuit and the meaning of a source of lawsuit on the decision

A. Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act provides that a person may file a lawsuit against a disposition by an urban planning project operator under the same Act shall be construed to the effect that the method of appeal against a disposition by an urban planning project operator may only be filed pursuant to the Acts of origin. Thus, even if the matters necessary for the collection of the beneficiary charges concerning an urban planning project under Article 65 (4) of the same Act are delegated to be prescribed by ordinances of the relevant local government, the procedure for objection against the disposition of imposing and collecting the beneficiary charges may not be prescribed by ordinances in conflict with Article 88 of the same Act. Thus, Article 12 of the Act on the Collection of the Beneficiary Charges for Urban Planning Projects in the preceding week, unlike Article 88 of the same Act,

B. Since it is interpreted as a written act that does not require a strict form, when a person whose rights or interests have been infringed due to an illegal and unfair administrative disposition submits a document to the administrative agency for cancellation or modification of such disposition within the statutory period, it shall not be deemed as a source of lawsuit as stipulated in Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, without regard to the title. Therefore, the plaintiff's written objection seeking cancellation or modification of the disposition imposing the beneficiary's charge is a source of lawsuit.

C. The written objection of this case filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, who is the disposition authority, is obvious in accordance with the purport of the pleading that the Defendant seeks the revocation or alteration of the disposition imposing charges by the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant should have transferred the written objection to the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, which is an adjudication authority, as the immediate superior administrative authority. Nevertheless, even if the Defendant rendered a direct judgment on the same objection, it is unclear, and the Plaintiff’s filing of the appeal against this decision is not merely an intention of demanding the ruling of the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, which is a ruling authority for the objection to be deemed a new filing, rather than a new filing.

(a) Articles 88 and 65(4) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 12(b) of the Ordinance on the Collection of Unfair Loans from Beneficiaries of Urban Planning Projects on the Jeonju City Urban Planning Projects; Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 1 and 5(c) of the Sub-Committee Act;

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Nu209 Decided September 28, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 65Nu113 through 118 Decided January 25, 196; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu186 Decided October 12, 1982 (dong Branch) 82Nu210 Decided October 12, 1982 (dong Branch)

Plaintiff

Jeonju Market

Gwangju High Court Decision 81Gu20 decided March 30, 1982

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

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below is based on Article 65 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, Article 56 of the former Enforcement Decree, and Article 213 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, which is the beneficiary charges due to the establishment of 1980, Nov. 15, 1980, which were executed from May 4, 197 by the defendant 19, and the plaintiff raised an objection to the defendant 29 of the same year after the imposition of 19,598,213 of the 19, which was owned by the plaintiff under the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act. The defendant's ruling to dismiss the plaintiff's above objection, and the plaintiff's objection to the 19,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000).

2. Article 1 (1) of the Sub-Action Act provides that a person whose rights or interests are infringed due to an illegal or unjust disposition of an administrative agency may file a lawsuit in principle so that he may file a petition for correction, and against this, Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act provides that the method of filing a lawsuit against the disposition of an urban planning project operator under this Act may be filed by the Sub-Action Act. Thus, Article 65 (4) of the Sub-Action Act provides that the method of filing a lawsuit against the disposition of the urban planning project operator under this Act may only be filed by the Sub-Action Act. Thus, even if the matters necessary for the collection of the expenses borne by a beneficiary with respect to an urban planning project are delegated to the head of the local government, the procedure of filing a petition for objection against the disposition of the expenses borne by a beneficiary cannot be prescribed by ordinances in conflict with Article 88 of the above Act even if Article 12 of the Ordinance on the Collection of the expenses borne by a beneficiary of an urban planning project in the previous city is delegated to the head of the local government.

3. The plaintiff filed an objection in accordance with the judgment below's determination as seen earlier in relation to the disposition imposing the beneficiary charges of the defendant. The plaintiff is interpreted as a written act which does not require a strict form as a source of administrative litigation. Thus, when a document is submitted from a person whose rights or interests have been infringed due to illegal or unjust administrative disposition to the administrative agency for the cancellation or modification of such disposition within the statutory period, it shall not be deemed as a source of lawsuit under Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, without regard to the title. Meanwhile, according to Articles 2 and 3 (2) of the Lawsuit Act, if the plaintiff filed a direct superior administrative agency via the administrative agency, but the submission agency is erroneous, the plaintiff shall transfer the defendant's written objection to the legitimate submission agency. Thus, since it is obvious in the purport of the pleading that the plaintiff's written objection filed against the defendant who is the disposition agency is seeking the cancellation or modification of the above disposition, it shall be viewed as a source of lawsuit and the defendant should have transferred the written objection to Jeollabuk-do, which is the immediately higher administrative agency.

Nevertheless, the defendant made a direct decision on the objection, but it was not significant, and there was no decision by the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, which is a ruling authority for the objection that should be dealt with as a source until then. Thus, the plaintiff's filing of a lawsuit against the above decision by the defendant, not a new source of lawsuit but a new source of lawsuit, urged the decision by the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, which is a ruling authority for the objection that should be viewed as source of lawsuit, to urge the decision by the Governor of Jeollabuk-do. The lawsuit filed within the prescribed period of time against the

Therefore, the above measures by the court below are deemed to have committed unlawful acts by misunderstanding Article 88 of the Urban Planning Act and the legal principles as to the source of lawsuit, and thus, it is reasonable to hold that there is a debate as to the disputed appeal, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who are involved in

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)