개발부담금부과처분취소
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of this case by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following 2. Thus, this case’s assertion is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article
2. Additional determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion
A. The plaintiff asserted that "the land of this case where the plaintiff developed the development project was assessed as high-priced by applying the excessive high ratification rate even though it was significantly heated on the access conditions or environmental conditions compared with the D land which is the comparative standard." The plaintiff asserted that "the land of this case where the plaintiff developed the development project was remarkably high, and sought revocation of the disposition imposing the development charges of this case based on the above evaluation and imposition of the
B. According to the judgment of 2, 5, and 7, among the land of 834 square meters prior to the Plaintiff’s Ansan-si, the land of 128 square meters prior to B is a natural green belt and is used for commercial purposes, and in that sense, it is not different from the standard place of comparison. However, in the shape, the land of “influence” is somewhat small compared to the standard place of comparison, compared to the land of “influence” on an expressway, which is located within 50 meters from the expressway, and is somewhat unfavorable under the conditions of access and environmental conditions. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there was any error in the outcome of evaluating the ratification rate compared to the standard place of comparison of the Plaintiff’s land as 0.958.
In addition, according to the above evidence, if the Plaintiff’s 1,029 square meters shape of warehouse site is excluded from the shape of a bridge, it is the same as that of the Plaintiff’s land prior to the exclusion, and it is not deemed that there was an error of determination of the ratification rate as 0.958 in comparison with the standard land.
Furthermore, as land used for commercial purposes, the officially announced value of the standard land is 175,000/m2, and according to B-5, the land price around the Plaintiff's land is current.