[2] Where a person who obtained permission for change of land form and quality conducts illegal construction different from design documents, etc. without obtaining prior permission for change of land form and quality, and obtains subsequent permission for change of design, whether the starting point of imposition of development charges can be changed to design change

[3] Whether the calculation of the land price at the time of termination of the imposition by the comparison table of land prices based on Article 10 (2) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act violates the principle of no taxation without law or

[2] According to Articles 78 and 92 subparag. 1 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 7 of the Regulations on the Criteria for Permission for Change, etc. of Land Form and Quality, etc., a person who has obtained permission for change of land form and quality shall construct land according to the permission according to the design documents, etc. submitted at the time of application for permission, and if construction is not possible according to the design documents, permission for change, etc., permission for change of land should be obtained in advance, and if construction is conducted differently from design documents, etc. without prior permission for change of land, etc., it will not be subject to criminal punishment, but the permission-granting agency may order removal, etc. of unlawful facilities or structures. A permission for change of land form and quality is a procedure that goes through to prevent or correct illegal state in cases where construction is not possible according to the original permission or design documents before completion inspection, and it does not constitute a new change of land form

[3] Under Article 10 (2) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995), the Minister of Construction and Transportation provides that the standard comparison table of land prices provided each year by the Minister of Construction and Transportation to relevant administrative agencies on the factors of establishing the land prices of reference land and land for land price calculation shall be deemed to have the legal nature of an additional legal room, along with the guidelines for the joint investigation of land prices, which is an execution order for enforcement under Article 10 of the same Act, and Article 10 (1) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993) provides that the land price at the end of imposition shall be calculated by the comparative comparison table under Article 10 (2) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on April 10, 1987, the plaintiff obtained a permit to change the form and quality of land from the defendant on April 10, 1987 for the construction of automobile maintenance factory site and 3,93 square meters (hereinafter "land in this case"), and after obtaining a permit to change the form and quality of land on December 29, 1992, the plaintiff completed a completion inspection on December 9, 1993. The defendant considered the change in the form and quality of land as the date of the permission to change the form and quality of the land in this case, which is subject to development charges on March 24, 1994, as the date of the completion inspection, and imposed a surcharge of KRW 514,32,70 on the land in this case as the date of the above completion inspection, and determined that the plaintiff's new permit to change the form and quality of land should be reduced to KRW 542,19,50,97,975,97.

However, the development gains subject to the imposition of development charges under the Restitution of Development Gains Act amended by Act No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "new Act") refer to an increase in land prices attributed to a project operator or landowner in excess of increases in normal land prices due to the implementation of a development project, the change of a land-use plan, or other social and economic factors (Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the new Act). It includes not only the direct land development, but also the increase in land prices arising from the social and economic factors, such as development of surrounding areas, change of use of land, and authorization of a development project by an administrative agency (Article 96Nu9324 of the previous Act, April 25, 1997). The land price as well as the starting point at the end of the imposition criteria, in principle, refers to the objective profit of criteria calculated by the method as determined by the Act based on the publicly assessed individual land price.

Meanwhile, according to Articles 78 and 92 subparag. 1 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 7 of the Regulations on Criteria for Permission for Change, etc. of Land Form and Quality, etc. of land, a person who has obtained permission for change of land form and quality shall construct land according to the previous permission according to the design documents, etc. submitted at the time of application for permission, and if construction is not possible according to the design documents, permission for change, etc. shall be obtained in advance, and if construction is conducted differently from design documents, etc. without obtaining prior permission for change, it shall not be subject to criminal punishment, but the permission-granting authority may order removal, etc. of unlawful facilities or structures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu23480, Jun. 24, 1994). A permission for change of land form and quality is not a new permission for change of land form and quality, which is a procedure to prevent or correct illegal state, and it shall not be subject to new permission for change of land form and quality, unless there are special circumstances such as the original permission becomes void

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, even though the plaintiff's business objective or construction work becomes somewhat different in comparison with the previous one, such circumstance alone does not change in that it is subject to charges (Article 5 (1) 11 and 5 (2) of the new Act). In light of the situation that the plaintiff's application for change of workplace location, application for change of workplace location, cancellation of application, etc. in addition to the permission for change of design and extension of the deadline for completion of construction, which is originally established on the premise of the permission for change of land form and quality, the above change cannot be deemed to fall under the permission for change of new form and quality. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the premise that the above design modification falls under the starting point of imposition, and it is obvious that the above design modification falls under the permission for change of land form and quality. Thus, there is

2. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined as follows.

A. Under Article 10 (2) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108, Dec. 29, 195; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Minister of Construction and Transportation has a legal nature that provides the relevant administrative agencies each year as a standard comparison table concerning the factors for establishing the land price of the reference land and the land subject to land price calculation under Article 10 (2) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108, Dec. 29, 1995; hereinafter the same shall apply) along with the guidelines for the joint investigation of land prices, which is an execution order for enforcement of Article 10 of the Land Price Disclosure Act, and the land price ratification table provided that the land price at the end of imposition shall be calculated by the comparative table under Article 10 (2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, and there is no error in violation of the principle of no taxation without law

B. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it is acceptable to consider the land of this case as commercial in calculating the land price at the time of completion of imposition, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the decision of the officially assessed individual land price.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)