According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that Article 9 of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, which provides that the plaintiff, established pursuant to the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, constructed a factory on the ground with permission to divert and process fishery products for the purpose of developing a site for the instant development project on June 25, 1993 and completed on October 22, 1994, the defendant considered the above project as a business subject to the imposition of development charges and determined that the plaintiff is subject to the imposition of development charges as stated in its reasoning. In light of the legislative purpose of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, Article 9 of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, which provides that "the business and property of the association and federation, shall be exempted from taxes and charges of the State or local governments." Article 9 of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, which does not include the legislative purport of Article 9 of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, Article 7 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563, Jun. 11, 193; hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act") and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act excluded from the imposition of development charges.

However, in order to promote the fostering and development of fisheries cooperatives and their federation, which are autonomous and cooperative organizations of fishermen, the provisions of Article 9 of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, which provides that "the duties and property of cooperatives and the Federation shall be exempted from taxes and charges of the State or local governments: Provided, That the same shall not apply to customs duties and goods taxes." Meanwhile, the provisions of Article 7 of the Act, which provides that "the special provisions of Article 3, 5, 6, and 13 of the Act, which provide that "the general provisions of Article 3, 6, and 13 of the Act, which provide that "the duties and property of cooperatives and the Federation shall be exempted from taxes and charges of the State or local governments." Meanwhile, the provisions of Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree, which provide that the State, local governments, and fisheries cooperatives, etc. shall reduce all or part of the development charges, have the characteristics of the special law on the general law on the imposition of development charges, shall be interpreted as having a relationship of inconsistency and conflict with each other.

If so, Article 7(2) of the Act, Article 5(2) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act provide that the development charges shall be reduced by 50/100 for a specific development project implemented by the Fisheries Cooperatives. Thus, Article 9 of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act cannot be applied to the development project of this case executed by the Plaintiff based on the principle of priority in new law. Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

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

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)