[2] In a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of the changed development charges according to the settlement of development charges, whether the grounds for illegality can be asserted as independent grounds for objection (affirmative)

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which dismissed the claim for revocation of the imposition of development charges on the ground that there was an error of law in the selection of the standard land price at the end of imposition

[2] If the development charges are settled, the initial imposition disposition shall be increased or reduced by the settlement thereof. Even if the project operator upon whom the changed development charges were imposed seeks cancellation of the increased or reduced development charges imposition disposition on the ground that the land price was calculated at the time when the imposition was completed, it can be asserted as an independent ground for objection that there was an unlawful ground for determination of the officially assessed individual land price at the time when the imposition was completed.

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which dismissed the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing the increased development charges on the ground that there was an error of error in the selection of the standard land price at the time when the land price was calculated, or remarkably unreasonable

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant imposed KRW 139,528,620 on the instant land on May 12, 1992 on the Plaintiff, a development project operator, and imposed development charges due to the instant development project completed on October 28, 1994, and the development gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993 and amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 195; hereinafter “the Act”) under Article 10(1) main sentence of Article 10(1) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by the Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995; hereinafter “the Act”) on the settlement of the land at KRW 871,00 per square meter and KRW 139,528,620,000 on the ground that the new land price for the instant land was obviously calculated at KRW 13989,139,0.

2. According to Article 10 (1) of the Act and Article 8-2 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, the land price at the end of the imposition shall be the price calculated by the comparative table under Article 10 (2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act on the basis of the officially announced land price of the land to be imposed at the end of the imposition and the reference land of the most similar use situation. If the value of the land at the end of the imposition exceeds or is less than the normal increase in land prices from the end of the imposition to January 1 of the year following the year in which the end of the imposition falls (i.e., the land price of the land to be imposed) or less than the normal increase in land prices from the end of the imposition at the end of the imposition at the end of the imposition at the end of the imposition at the end of the imposition at the end of the imposition at the end of the imposition at the end of the imposition at the end of the imposition at the end of the imposition.

Therefore, if the development charges are settled as above, the initial imposition disposition shall be increased or reduced by the settlement thereof, and even if the project operator upon whom the development charges are imposed seeks the cancellation of the increased or reduced development charges imposed on the ground that there is an error in calculating the land price at the time of completion of the imposition, it can be asserted as an independent ground for objection that there is an unlawful ground for determining the officially assessed individual land price at the time of completion of the imposition (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu8542 delivered on January 25, 1994).

3. Meanwhile, the officially assessed individual land price is a price which is determined by comparing and comparing the characteristics of the reference land with the reference land price index provided by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and then by multiplying the officially assessed land price of the reference land by the officially assessed land price of the reference land, inasmuch as the determination of the officially assessed individual land price was erroneous (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu159 delivered on March 11, 1994), and the reference land price for determining the officially assessed land price is the most similar to the situation of the use of the reference land, i.e., land category, specific use, land use (use), surrounding environment, location, and other natural factors (see Supreme Court Decision 201Nu159 delivered on March 11, 1995).

4. However, according to the record, in the disposition imposing development charges of this case, the land price of this case in 195, which was the basis for calculating the land price at the time of completion of the imposition, was determined as the standard land price of 190 m2, 50 m2, 300 m2, 300 m2, 500 m2, 300 m2, 994, 1994, 1994, 300 m2, 1995 m2, 30 m2, 50 m2, 300 m2, 90 m2, 1995 m2, and 94 m2, 190 m2, 300 m2, 50 m2,000 m2, 97 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00.

According to the above circumstances, the 1995 officially assessed individual land price for the land of this case, which was determined as the reference land price for the land of this case compared to the site of this 580-8 of the same 580-dong, Goyang-si, Goyang-si, is deemed to have not been balanced because the 1995 officially assessed individual land price for the land of this case, which was determined as the reference land price for the same 580-8 site, was too high compared to that of neighboring similar land. Thus, the 1995 officially assessed individual land price decision for the land of this case, unless there are special circumstances, shall be deemed to have been erroneous or unreasonable.

5. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff alleged that there was an error of calculating the land price excessively high at the time of termination of imposition due to the error in the selection of the reference land at the time of the initial imposition before the change, the overall purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that, as long as the Plaintiff sought cancellation of the overall imposition of the increased development charges, it was unlawful as the individual land price at the time of completion of imposition at the time of the changed imposition was illegally determined in 195. Therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the imposition of the increased development charges and the imposition of the changed development charges, as it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the initial imposition of the changed development charges was made at the time of expiration of the imposition of the new land price at the time of the changed imposition. Therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the changed imposition of the new land price at the time of imposition of the new land price at the time of imposition of the new land price at the time of expiration of the first imposition of the changed imposition of the new land price.

6. 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 Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)