2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On December 20, 2006, New L&C Co., Ltd. (formerly, a company other than Hanjin-si and 20,58 square meters (hereinafter “instant project site”) newly built apartment units on the ground (hereinafter “instant project site”) from the Defendant on December 20, 2006, the project plan was approved regarding the housing construction project (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. On February 15, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) secured the ownership of the instant project site; and (b) entrusted the Plaintiff with the land on 26 lots, such as 122 square meters, in the instant project site, Jin-si, Jin-si ( Address omitted); (c) acquired the instant land; and (d) newly constructed an apartment (as a trust property for the instant land) on the instant land, and sold it on the instant land; (b) the Plaintiff collected the input cost from the income; (c) delivered the proceeds therefrom to the Nonparty company, the truster; and (d) concluded a land trust agreement and a sale-type land trust agreement (hereinafter “instant trust agreement”) with the content that only the trust fee is paid.

On the same day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer and trust in the name of the Plaintiff in accordance with the instant trust contract.

C. On March 13, 2007, the Plaintiff obtained a modified approval of the business plan from the Defendant to the Plaintiff by changing the subject of the instant business from the non-party company to the Plaintiff.

On March 30, 2010, the Plaintiff obtained approval for the use of an apartment completed in accordance with the instant project.

D. On March 17, 2011, the Defendant imposed development charges of KRW 1,471,060,000 on the Plaintiff in accordance with the Restitution of Development Gains Act (hereinafter “Development Gains Restitution Act”).

E. As to this, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Land Expropriation Committee, but on October 28, 2011, the Central Land Expropriation Committee dismissed it on the ground that “the Plaintiff becomes an absolute owner of trust property as a trustee of trust contract, and succeeded to the status of the project implementer from the Nonparty Company, and thus, should pay development charges.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), Eul evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff is in the position of the owner of the instant land and apartment on the ground in accordance with the instant trust agreement concluded with the Nonparty Company, but is merely a trustee managing trust property, and is not the subject of enjoying development gains. Development gains are attributed to the truster or beneficiary according to the trust agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be a person obligated to pay development charges under the Development Gains Refund Act.

2) The Plaintiff is not a person who succeeds to the status of a project operator, who is a landowner prescribed in the main sentence of Article 6(1) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act, or a project operator prescribed in Article 6(1)3 proviso, but is only a person entrusted with a development project prescribed in Article 6(1) proviso 1, and thus is not a person liable for development charges.

3) Nevertheless, the instant disposition taken by the Plaintiff on the premise that the Plaintiff is liable for payment of development charges is unlawful and thus ought to be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

A) Legal grounds for the obligation to pay development charges

According to Articles 2, 5(1) and 6(1) of the Development Gains Refund Act, development charges are imposed on development gains, which are the increase in land prices belonging to the implementer or landowner, due to social and economic factors such as the execution of the development project, such as the housing site development project, etc., which are subject to the development charges. In exceptional cases, the development project operator, who is subject to the development charges, is an obligor to pay the development charges in the principle of the development charges. In cases where the development project operator is entrusted or contracted to another person (Article 1), the person who entrusted or contracted the development project (Article 2 (1) and the person who succeeded to the status of the project operator prior to the completion of the development project (Article 3).

B) A payment obligor of development charges

Considering that an increase in land value attributed to a project operator or a landowner in excess of an increase in normal land price is subject to development charges by recovering development gains accrued from land and properly distributing them, thereby preventing speculation on land and promoting the efficient use of land, or by implementing a development project, a project operator prescribed in the main sentence of Article 6(1) of the Development Gains Refund Act refers to a project operator, who is a landowner who obtains non-income gains by implementing a development project, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu19354 delivered on August 24, 1993, etc.).

Meanwhile, Article 6(1)3 proviso of the Development Gains Refund Act stipulating a person who succeeds to the status of a project operator before completion of the development project as the person liable for the payment of the development charges, and Article 6(1)3 proviso of the same Act stipulates that it is not easy to impose the development charges separately on the project operator before and after the transfer of the development gains accrued after the succession of the development gains accrued until the succession of the development projects and the development gains accrued after the succession of the development gains accrued from the succession of the former and the latter, and that the parties who succeed to the development project can have agreed on the succession of the development charges among the parties who succeed to the development project (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du19321, Mar. 12, 2009).

C) Legal relations under trust law

In general, a contract to the effect that a landowner entrusts land to a real estate trust company and a real estate trust company conducts appropriate development activities such as constructing a building on the land trusted as a trustee or creating a housing site, and then jointly sells or leases the land and the ground buildings, and then collects the input cost of the trust company from the revenue and delivers the proceeds to the beneficiary, shall be deemed as a trust contract under the Trust Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da24557, Jun. 9, 2006).

Where a trust is created under the Trust Act, the trustee shall be the full ownership of the trust property inside and outside the country until the trust is terminated. Where the trust is terminated, the trustee shall be the full ownership of the trust property; (1) where the purpose of the trust is attained or becomes impossible to achieve or where the trust is terminated due to the occurrence of a cause for termination prescribed by the deed of trust, the trust property shall vest in the beneficiary (where the beneficiary of the residual property is prescribed by the deed of trust, referring to the beneficiary of the residual property): Provided, That where a person to whom the residual property of the trust property

Meanwhile, by the deed of trust, the trustee may establish a "limited liability trust" which is solely liable for the trust property for the debts belonging to the trust property. In this case, the registration of the limited liability trust shall take effect (Article 114(1) of the Trust Act).

2) As recognized in Article 6(1)1 of the Development Gains Refund Act, the non-party company entrusted the instant land to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on the following terms: (a) newly constructing and selling apartment units on the instant land; (b) collecting input costs from the revenue therefrom; (c) transferring the proceeds therefrom to the trustor; and (d) receiving only the trust fees on the instant land; and (b) in light of the fact that the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer and trust under the Plaintiff’s name, the nature of the instant trust agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the non-party company is a trust agreement

Therefore, in light of the facts acknowledged under paragraph (1) and the legal principles as to trust contracts under the Trust Act, the trustee shall be the full owner of the trust property inside and outside the country until the trust is terminated if the registration of transfer of ownership and the registration of trust is completed in the name of the trustee, and even in the internal and external relationship with the truster, the ownership of the trust property, including the instant land, is transferred to the trustee, and thus, the trust property, including the instant land, shall be entirely reverted to the Plaintiff, the trustee, and the Plaintiff is the full owner of the instant land even at the time of the occurrence of the development gains following the completion of the instant project. Thus, the Plaintiff falls under the person liable to pay development charges as the landowner under the main sentence of Article 6 (1) of the Development Gains Refund Act, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to fall under the person entrusted with

B) As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the development gains on the instant land do not belong to the Plaintiff, the trustee, and the beneficiary are attributed to the beneficiary according to the principle of prohibition of the trustee’s enjoyment of interest and prohibition of acquisition of trust property under the Trust Act, and thus, the Plaintiff does not

On the other hand, the "development gains", which is an increase in the value of the land arising from the implementation of the project of this case, is a separate concept from the "trust gains" arising from the management, disposal, operation, and development of trust property. The increase in the land value of this case is a profit accrued to the land of this case. Since the owner of the land of this case is the plaintiff, the development charges imposed on the plaintiff is due to the legal principles of trust under the Trust Act, the ownership of the land of this case, which is the trust property, absolutely belongs to the plaintiff. The beneficiary of the trust or the remaining person belonging to the trust, is able to enjoy the remaining trust profits after deducting the remuneration or expenses, etc. from the trust property from the trust property at the time when the trust is terminated. The nature of the right is also the obligatory nature of the right. The "development gains" in the "Development Gains Exchange Act" is calculated based on the difference of the land value between the time when the development project is imposed and the time when the development project is authorized, etc., and there is no ground to interpret only "the increase in land value" calculated in accordance with the Development Gains Act.

3) Whether the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the project implementer under Article 6(1)3 proviso of the Restitution of Development Gains Act

On December 20, 2006, the non-party company entered into the instant trust contract with the Plaintiff on February 15, 2007 after obtaining approval for the business plan from the Defendant on December 20, 206. The Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the project implementer of the instant case after obtaining approval for the alteration of the business plan from the Defendant on March 13, 2007, and obtained approval for the use of the housing for the apartment completed according to the instant business on March 30, 2010. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the above evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2, according to Article 19 of the Land Trust Business Agreement (Evidence No. 1-1) and Article 17 of the Land Trust Contract (Evidence No. 1-2), the Plaintiff and the non-party company should be deemed to have concluded the instant trust agreement with the Plaintiff on the development charges imposed pursuant to the instant trust agreement with the Plaintiff or the trustee of the instant trust agreement, and the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have been paid the trust agreement with the Plaintiff and the non-party 16.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, with respect to the development gains accrued from the project of this case, the plaintiff not only falls under the project operator, who is the land owner under the main sentence of Article 6 (1) of the Development Gains Refund Act, but also falls under the person who succeeded to the status of the project operator under the proviso of Article 6 (1) 3, and the disposition of this case against the plaintiff is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of Related Acts]

Judges Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)

(1) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the above agreed provisions are merely a typical phrase in the standard contract form, and they do not have any validity or legal significance. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no reason therefor.