[농지보전부담금환급청구][미간행]
In a case where farmland preservation charges are imposed on Gap business cooperative, which is an implementer of industrial complex development projects conducted in the metropolitan area, the case affirming the judgment below that the above disposition of imposition is lawful on the ground that it is reasonable to interpret the latter part of Article 4 (2) of the former Act on Special Measures for the Support of Small and Micro Enterprises as applicable to the creation of industrial complexes attracting at least 50 percent of small enterprises
Article 4 (2) of the former Act on Special Measures for the Support of Small and Micro Enterprises (Amended by Act No. 10710, May 24, 201)
Amju Industrial Complex Project Cooperatives (Law Firm Rate, Attorney Han-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Korea
Korea Rural Community Corporation (Law Firm Doll, Attorneys Park Young-seok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na2006719 decided November 8, 2013
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from supplementary participation.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, it is reasonable to interpret that the latter part of Article 4(2) of the former Act on Special Measures for the Support of Small and Micro Enterprises (amended by Act No. 10710, May 24, 201) (hereinafter “instant provision”) applies to cases where an industrial complex which attracts more than 50/10 of a small enterprise in an area outside the Seoul Metropolitan area is created. Therefore, the lower court determined that the instant disposition imposing farmland preservation charges on the instant development project conducted in an area within the Seoul Metropolitan area was lawful.
Furthermore, the court below held that even if there were defects in the application of the latter part of the provision of this case to the disposition of this case which excluded the latter part of the provision of this case from the application of the provision of this case, the defect cannot be deemed to be the degree of invalidity as a matter of course, and the public official in charge should not be deemed to be negligent, in light of the fact that there were disputes in the interpretation of the latter part of the provision of this case between the Ministry of Government Legislation, the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the Small and Medium Business Administration, or there
2. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the application of the latter part of the provision of this case, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the invalidity of administrative disposition or the state liability.
3. 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 on the bench.
Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)