(b) Legal nature of the imposition period of the development charges under Article 14 of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act;

B. Article 14 of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993) cannot be deemed to provide for the exclusion period for exercising the right to impose development charges, in full view of the purport of the development charges system, the form and content of the relevant provisions, and the relevant provisions, and is merely an official decoration provision for administrative agencies.

Article 9(3)2 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) provides that the time of completion of a development project shall, in principle, be the date the completion of the development project is authorized, but the time of completion shall be the time of completion of the project if the project implementer sold in lots to others, etc., but the time of completion shall be the time of completion of the contract even before the registration of transfer of ownership transfer. Article 8(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13718 of Aug. 25, 1992) provides that where the ownership of the land is transferred and where a person who intends to purchase the land starts the construction of the building with the consent of the project implementer for use, etc., the provision of the Enforcement Decree shall be null and void in violation of the mother Act (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu12841 of May 11, 1993).

Therefore, it is proper that the court below recognized that the apartment house, etc. on the land subject to the development charges of this case was sold in advance before the approval of completion of the development project of this case was granted, and that the time of completion of the development project of this case was seen as the time of the pre-sale contract, not the pre-sale price at the time of the approval of completion of the development project of this case,

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

Article 14 of the Act provides that the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall impose development charges within three months from the time of completion of the development project: Provided, That in the case of the proviso of Article 10 (1) of the Act, the Minister shall impose development charges within three months from the date when the first officially announced land is published after the time of completion of the development project. In full view of the purport, form and content of the development charges system, relevant laws and regulations, it cannot be deemed that the above provision provides the exclusion period for exercising the right to impose development charges, and only the administrative agency'

However, the court below deemed the provision of Article 14 of the above Act to be related to the exclusion period for the exercise of the right to impose development charges, and found that the disposition of this case was unlawful solely for the reason that the development charges of this case were imposed after the expiration of the period stipulated in the above provision. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the nature of the period stipulated in Article 14 of the above Act, which affected the

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)