개발부담금부과처분취소
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The development charges imposed on the plaintiffs on April 4, 2014 by the defendant on the plaintiffs on April 241, 454.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 12, 2008, C obtained permission to convert a mountainous district for the creation of a field entry book with respect to Gwangju City D, E, and F (the total area of each of the above land is 9,263 square meters) on February 12, 2008. The Plaintiffs purchased each of the D land on March 11, 2012 and each of the remaining lands on April 27, 2012, and completed the development project after undergoing a completion inspection on April 12, 2013.
B. On October 7, 2013, the Defendant imposed KRW 120,727,270, which applied 50% of the reduction rate of quasi-contained forest land under Article 7(2)5 of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 9045, Mar. 28, 2008) and Article 5(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20878, Jun. 25, 2008) on the Plaintiffs regarding each of the above lands, and subsequently, found that the development projects by the Plaintiffs do not fall under the reduction or exemption, and subsequently imposed KRW 120,727,270, which was reduced or exempted on April 4, 2014.
(2) The purport of the whole pleadings and arguments as follows: (i) Development gains (i) 9,892,547 development costs of 39,103,813 development costs of 1,039,016,310; (ii) Development charges (i) 965,818,204 [=(iii 241,45%) 120,727,270 【50%) at the time of termination of imposition (iv) 120,727,270 【No dispute on the basis of recognition; (iii) development charges 1,03,813 development costs of 1,039,016,310 ; and (iv) development charges 965,818,204 =(iv) development charges 241,454,540 - (iv) development charges 120,727,270 -
2. A disposition to revise an increase of the development charges subject to a lawsuit is not to add only the initially determined development gains and development charges, but to re-determine a single development gains and development charges as a whole, including the increased portion, and thus, the original decision to impose the development gains and development charges shall lose its validity by absorbing the increased imposition disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du26699, May 16, 2014). In this case, the Defendant’s disposition of imposition on October 7, 2013, which was added to the disposition of imposition on April 4, 2014, invalidated its validity.