개발부담금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the development project (hereinafter “instant project”) with permission for development activities for the purpose of creating a site for automobile-related facilities with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) from the Defendant for the purpose of creating a site for automobile-related facilities, and obtained approval for completion on March 14, 2014.
B. On September 3, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that development charges will be imposed KRW 2,148,415,650 in accordance with the main sentence of Article 10(3) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (hereinafter “Development Gains Restitution Act”).
(1) The calculation details: (1) The land value as at the time of completion shall be 25% of the development gains from the starting point of the deduction amount: 6,549,223,691 development costs of 3,753,776,124 normal increase in normal land prices of 287,682,73733: Development gains (=1-2) 5,321,967,024.
C. Accordingly, on September 25, 2014, when submitting a transaction price report, etc. to the Defendant, the Plaintiff requested that the actual purchase price be applied to the calculation of the land price as of the starting point of imposition of each of the instant lands. On October 6, 2014, the Defendant applied the actual purchase price to each of the instant lands listed in attached Tables 1, 4, and 7 among the instant lands, and imposed development charges of KRW 1,330,491,750 on the remainder of the land based on the publicly assessed individual land price as follows (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Land Expropriation Committee, but the said Committee dismissed it on March 24, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9, 11, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 3 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion regarding each of the instant land on June 4, 2013, prior to the starting point of imposition of development charges.