개발부담금부과처분취소
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of the claim.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment to this court as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination by this Court
A. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows. The defendant asserts in this court as the grounds for appeal.
1) Eight persons, including the Plaintiff, etc., established the obligation to pay development charges, are deemed to have implemented the development project by dividing the instant land owned before the instant land owned by the same person into less than the area subject to the imposition of development charges, which constitutes a case where the same person has developed the development project by de facto dividing the relevant land. Therefore, whether to impose the development charges for the instant development activities is determined based on the total of the areas of each land subject to development by the said eight persons (Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act). As such, eight persons, including the Plaintiff, etc., are subject to the imposition of development charges. The Plaintiff, etc., were to lease the land before the instant land was divided into B and implement the development project (Article 6(1)2 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act), and the Plaintiff, etc. was obligated to pay the development charges, even if the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land and succeeded to the status of B on October 19, 201 on the date of completion of the instant development activities (Article 6(1)2 and 3)2).15.6