[수익자부담금부과처분취소][공1982.12.15.(694),1104]
(a) Where the proceeds from the sale of land disused due to the implementation of an urban planning project exceed the project expenses, the imposition of the beneficiary charges; and
(b) Whether road expansion works on a duct river are subject to the beneficiary charges;
A. The beneficiary charges may be imposed even in cases where the disposal revenue of the land disused exceeds the required expenses, since the operator of the urban planning project has the revenue accrued from disposing of the land reverted to himself/herself due to the implementation of the project, which is the premise for calculating the beneficiary charges (the deduction from the cost of the urban planning project pursuant to Article 56(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act is not limited to the subsidy provided for in Article 66 of the same Act).
B. According to Article 65 of the Urban Planning Act and Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Ordinance on the Collection of Beneficiary Charges in Gwangju City, which was enacted and promulgated pursuant to Article 56 of the Urban Planning Act and Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the charges shall be imposed for the new construction or expansion of a road, and it is clear that the new construction or expansion of a road may correspond to the new construction or expansion of a road even when a river is reconstructed and expanded. Thus, the construction of this case is included in the project subject to the imposition of beneficiary charges so long as the construction
Article 65 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 56 of Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, Article 3 of the Ordinance on Collection of Charges by Beneficiaries of Urban Planning in Gwangju City
Supreme Court Decision 81Nu88 delivered on June 22, 1982, 81Nu13 delivered on June 22, 1982, 81Nu8 delivered on June 22, 1982
Attorney Choi Jong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others
Gwangju High Court Decision 79Gu17 delivered on February 13, 1981
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.
With respect to No. 1:
According to the judgment of the court below, the Gwangju City Mayor intended to implement the construction project as an urban planning project, but it is impossible to meet the expenses to be incurred in the construction project due to the financial situation, and the construction project was implemented with the contribution of 111,00,000 won from 4 persons, such as Gahee, etc. at its expense, and the construction of a new road due to the execution of the construction project was conducted, and part of the existing roads and river site substituted therefor was not required to be provided for public use and the site for waste 176.5 square meters at 164,45,000 and transferred the above project cost to the non-party, while assessing 11,45,000 won from 11,45,000 won and liquidated the construction cost after receiving from the non-party, so the cost of the urban planning project is deemed to have been borne by the operator of Gwangju City City, which is an administrative agency, and the cost of the urban planning project to be incurred for the disposal of the land which was abolished by the project operator.
With respect to the second ground:
According to Article 65 of the Urban Planning Act and Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Ordinance on the Collection of Beneficiary Charges in Gwangju City, which was enacted and promulgated pursuant to Article 56 of the Urban Planning Act and Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the charges shall be imposed in the case of new construction or expansion of a road, and it is clear that the new construction or expansion of a road should be applied to the case of new construction or expansion of a road by cutting a river. Thus, as long as the construction of a new road is implemented by cutting a river, it is included in the subject of the charges so long as the construction of a road is implemented by cutting a river, the measures of the court below that the Defendant imposed the beneficiary charges on the Plaintiff pursuant to the provisions of the above Ordinance are justified
With respect to the third point:
Before the implementation of this case, the decision that the land of this case increased to KRW 3,300,000 after the implementation of this case was 80,000,000 after the implementation of this case is only a fact-finding argument that is a serious mistake of facts, and it is not reasonable to argue that simple mistake of facts is not
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.
Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)