[개발부담금부과처분취소][공1997.9.15.(42),2728]
Whether the development project which had been approved after the enforcement of the Restitution of Development Gains Act is subject to the development charges, although it was commenced after the completion of the development project and its use was enforced (negative)
If an industrial base development project approval under Article 2 of the Addenda of the former Industrial Sites and Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4216, Jan. 13, 1990; Act No. 4216, Jan. 14, 1991; Act No. 4216, Jan. 14, 1991; Act No. 4177, Dec. 30, 1989; Act No. 4175, Jun. 11, 1993; Act No. 4563, Jun. 1, 1993; Act No. 4563, Jan. 1, 1990; Act No. 4517, Jan. 2, 1990; Act No. 4517, Feb. 2, 2007) with respect to the land concerned has already been developed as a factory site and used as a land annexed to the factory, the project subject to development charges
Articles 2, 5(1)3, and 9(3)2 of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993); Article 2 of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 4563 of Dec. 30, 1989); Article 4 [Attachment 1] subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Ba-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Ulsan City Mayor (Attorney Ha Man-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Busan High Court Decision 95Gu6137 delivered on December 13, 1996
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff had already developed the land in this case as factory site before October 1, 1989 and used it as land annexed to a factory, and that the industrial base development project (the project was repealed as of January 14, 1991 under Article 2 of the Addenda of the Industrial Sites and Development Act, enacted as Act No. 4216 of January 13, 1990) was approved for the implementation of the industrial base development project pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda of the Industrial Sites and Development Act, which was enforced by Act No. 4216 of January 13, 1990), and obtained the completion authorization of the national industrial complex development project under the Industrial Sites and Development Act of December 10, 1993, but did not contain any errors in the misapprehension of legal principles or misapprehension of legal principles as to the imposition of development charges under Article 2 of the Addenda of the Industrial Sites and Development Act, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the ground of appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)