학교용지부담금부과처분취소
The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 347,311,00 on the Plaintiff on March 11, 2020 shall be revoked.
The costs of lawsuit.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative that implements a redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant project”) to Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul as an improvement zone.
B. On March 11, 2020, the Defendant calculated the number of households to increase due to the implementation of the instant project as 60 households [the number of households to be newly built 326 households (excluding rental houses 58 households among newly built 384 households) - the existing 266 households] and imposed KRW 347,311,000 on the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 5 and 5-2 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Securing, etc. of Sites for School (amended by Act No. 1725 of May 19, 2020; hereinafter “former Act on Sites for School”) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The parties’ assertion 1) In order to determine whether the number of households under Article 5(1)5 of the former School Sites Act increases, “the number of existing households” should be calculated including the number of households of tenants.
From the point of time to understand the “number of existing households” in the instant business, the number of new households exceeds 400 households and exceeds 326 households.
Therefore, since the project of this case does not increase the number of households in the rearrangement zone as a result of its implementation, the defendant cannot impose the amount of school site charges on the plaintiff. Thus, the disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.
2) The Defendant’s “number of existing households” should be calculated based on the building permit without including tenants. In the instant case, 226 households are premised on the instant disposition.
Plaintiff
If the number of existing households is included in the “number of existing households” as argued, it is greater than the “number of households” registered in the public register, which does not conform to the calculation and balance of the “number of new households” based on the supply households registered in the public register.
Therefore, the instant disposition is based on the number of households lawfully calculated.