[2] In a case where there is a change in circumstances such as the project operator's restoration after the imposition of development charges was imposed on the basis of the expiration date of imposition, whether the initial imposition disposition is unlawful (negative)

[3] The standard for the selection of standard land to calculate the land price at the time of completing the imposition of development charges

[4] The case holding that there was an error in the selection of standard land for calculating the land price at the time of completion of imposition of development charges

[2] Since the development charges are imposed as of the point of time when the development is terminated, the imposition of the development charges shall not be deemed null and void or illegal on the ground that there was a change in circumstances, such as the project operator, etc. to restore the original state, after the imposition of the development charges was imposed as of

[3] According to Article 10(1) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 195), and Article 8-2(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14721 of Jul. 6, 1995), the land price at the time of completion of the imposition shall be the value calculated by the comparison table under Article 10(2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act on the basis of the officially announced value of the reference land which is the most similar land at the time of completion of the imposition, and as the reference land for determining the officially assessed land price, the land price at the time of completion of the imposition shall be the value calculated by the comparison table under Article 10(2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.

[4] The case holding that there was an error in the selection of the standard land on the ground that the land subject to the development charges and the standard land price for calculating the land price at the time of completion of the imposition are different from specific use area,

Article 20 (2) of the former Administrative Litigation Act (amended by Act No. 4770 of Jul. 27, 1994 and enforced from Mar. 1, 1998) provides that "no lawsuit against a case for which an administrative appeal is not filed or a decision is not made shall be filed after the lapse of 180 days from the date on which the disposition is known, or one year from the date of the disposition: Provided, That this shall not apply in case where there is a justifiable reason, except in case where there is a justifiable reason." This provision provides that a case for which no administrative appeal is filed or a decision is made shall be subject to the application of a case for which the decision is not made, and if it constitutes an exception to the principle of administrative appeal, the service of a written ruling on the administrative appeal shall not be possible, and in such case, unless there is a justifiable reason, a revocation lawsuit shall not be filed within 180 days from the date on which the disposition subject to the revocation lawsuit is known, and within one year from the date of the disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu6521

According to the records, the plaintiff 1 filed the lawsuit of this case as of August 11, 1995 and then received notification of the disposition of this case from the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 3 around that time, on the ground that it constitutes a case where the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling of rejection on February 27, 1996 on the same kind of administrative case as the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 3 filed the lawsuit of this case with the above plaintiffs on April 16, 1996, and sought revocation of the disposition of this case as the main claim and sought confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of this case as the main claim. Thus, since the plaintiff 1 filed the lawsuit of this case more than 180 days after the notice of this case, the main claim of the above plaintiff 1 is dismissed as illegal, and the court below reversed this part of this case as it is sufficient for the court to render a direct judgment, it is decided to dismiss it pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 407 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal as to Plaintiff 1’s preliminary claim and the grounds of appeal as to Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3’s claims (to the extent of supplement in case of Plaintiff 1’s supplemental appellate brief and Plaintiff 1’s supplemental appellate brief not timely filed).

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by Plaintiff 1’s agent, Plaintiff 2, and Plaintiff 3’s agent, respectively.

In full view of the relevant provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 5108, Dec. 29, 1995; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Articles 13 through 17-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14721, Jul. 6, 1995); and the purport of the system of development charges, the provisions on notification of scheduled imposition of development charges under Article 14(2) of the Act shall be deemed to be an official decoration provision for administrative agencies. The argument in the grounds of appeal on this point is without merit.

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 3 by Plaintiff 1’s agent, Plaintiff 2, and Plaintiff 3’s agent

In the judgment of the court below, it is proper that the development charges should be imposed as of the time when the development is terminated, and that the time when the development charges can be imposed in this case is December 7, 1994, which is the date of usage inspection for a building, and the disposition of this case cannot be invalidated or illegal on the ground that there was a change in circumstances such as the project operator, etc.'s restoration to the original state after the disposition of this case was issued on the basis of this time. There is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the criteria and timing of the imposition of the development charges, incomplete deliberation as

C. As to the ground of appeal No. 2 by Plaintiffs 2 and 3 agents

According to Article 10(1) of the Act and Article 8-2(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, the land price at the time of completion of the imposition shall be the price calculated in accordance with a comparative table under Article 10(2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act on the basis of the officially announced value of the reference land which is the most similar land to the land subject to imposition at the time of completion of the imposition, and the reference land for determining the officially assessed individual land price shall be selected as the reference land which is the most similar land use situation, namely, the reference land, specific-use area, land category, land use (actual use), surrounding environment, location, and other natural and social conditions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu9096, Apr. 11, 19

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that there was no error in the selection of the standard land inasmuch as the characteristics of the above standard land are similar to those of the land in this case, without comparing the neighboring standard land in Ansan-si ( Address 1 omitted), which is a comparative standard for determining the 1995 officially assessed land price of the land in this case, which was the basis for the Defendant’s calculation of the land price at the time of completion of imposition, with respect to the 460 square meters (number 1 omitted) of the above standard land (number 95,00 square meters) of the land in this case, which is the comparison standard for determining the 1995 officially assessed land price (number 1 omitted) and 460 square meters (number 9,00 square meters). However, according to the records, the above standard land is a standard land with approximately 420 meters away from the land in this case as the above standard land is similar to the neighboring land in this case, it is difficult to conclude that the above standard land is similar to the standard land use of reference land in this case.

Therefore, the court below should examine whether there is a reference land which is more similar to the situation of the use among the reference land in the vicinity of the land in this case and determine whether there was an error of law in determining the point of termination of imposition due to erroneous determination of the reference land price in 1995 as to the land in this case, and judged that the disposition of this case was legitimate. In this regard, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the selection of reference land at the time of the decision of the officially assessed individual land price, or in incomplete deliberation

D. As to the ground of appeal No. 2 by Plaintiff 1’s agent

As seen above, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the selection of the reference land at the time of the determination of the officially assessed individual land price, or in failing to reach such determination, by erroneous determination as to the selection of the reference land price in 1995 as to the land of this case as to the land of this case, and thereby finding the disposition of this case lawful. However, it cannot be said that such defect is significant and objective as to the imposition of the reference land at the time of the determination of the officially assessed individual land price. The above plaintiff's land among the land of this case is owned by the plaintiff, even though the land of this case is contrary to the conditions adjacent to the road of this case, it did not err in the inspection of land characteristics and thus decided higher than the standard for comparison. However, even if there were such errors, it cannot be said that the disposition of this case is null and void. The ground for appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against plaintiffs 2 and 3 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The part of the plaintiff 1's main claim is reversed, and that part of the lawsuit is dismissed, and the appeal against the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed, and the total cost of the lawsuit against the plaintiff's main claim is assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)