The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. On the first and second points

In light of the purpose of the Restitution of Development Gains Act and Articles 1 through 4 of the same Act, if a person who implements a land development project with approval from the State, etc. intends to recover development gains acquired in excess of increases in normal land prices by implementing the project and distribute them properly, thereby preventing speculation on land and promoting the efficient utilization of land, promoting the sound development of the national economy, and the scale of the project subject to the development charges is more than 3,300 square meters under Article 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13718 of Aug. 25, 192), the scale of the project subject to the development charges shall be more than the size of the development charges, but there are considerable speculative gains from the development. In addition, if the same project is implemented after obtaining approval from the State, etc., the development project shall be determined by adding up the size of the land subject to the development charges to the total area of the land subject to the development charges, even if the project is jointly implemented by several persons.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with records, the plaintiff and the non-party agree with the measures that recognized the fact that the forest land in this case was jointly developed as a factory site, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or misconception of facts in violation of the rules of evidence, as argued in the process. In addition, even if the share of the plaintiff out of the 4,079m2, which was changed to the form and quality of the factory site, is less than 3,300m2, the share of the plaintiff among the 4,079m2, which was changed to the form and quality of the factory site, is less than 2,079m2, in a case where two or more joint businesses jointly conduct the business, regardless of whether the share of each project operator is the above minimum size subject to development charges, if the area of the land subject to the whole project is larger than the above size, the above change of the form and quality of the land in this case's land can be imposed on all joint business operators,

2. On the third ground for appeal

As legally determined by the court below, the defendant imposed development charges on the change of land form and quality of the forest land in this case as factory site under Article 4 of the Urban Planning Act. Such change of land form and quality of the project is obvious in light of the purport of Article 5 (1) 11 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act, Article 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13465 of Sep. 13, 191), and Article 11 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13465 of Sep. 13, 1991), and the change of land form and quality corresponding to the projects under subparagraphs 1 through 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act as stated in Article 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and there is no error of law in the judgment below's application of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act to the change of land form and quality prior to the enforcement of the development charges.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's 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.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)