개발부담금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiffs purchased D orchard 2,056 square meters and E orchard 984 square meters (each of the above land was 3,040 square meters in Guri-si due to the merger on January 7, 2016; hereinafter “instant land”) from Guri-si on May 30, 201, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 9, 2014.
B. F newly constructed a building (hereinafter “instant building”) which is a cultural and assembly facility (art gallery) on the instant land, and obtained approval for use from the Defendant on December 10, 2015. Upon the Plaintiffs’ application, the land category of the instant land was changed from “water sources” to “building site.”
C. On December 28, 2015, F changed the purpose of use of the instant building into Class I neighborhood living facilities (retail stores), and 194.8 square meters into Class II neighborhood living facilities (offices), respectively (hereinafter “instant change of use”). D.
On January 7, 2016, registration of ownership in F in the name of F and registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiffs (transaction on January 7, 2016) were completed in order.
E. The Defendant, as the original usage of the instant building was cultural and assembly facilities (art galleries), excluded from the imposition of development charges pursuant to Article 4(5) [Attachment 2] subparag. 1(c) of the Enforcement Rule of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Restitution of Development Gains Act”). However, upon the change of the usage of the instant building, the Defendant imposed development charges of KRW 37,724,870 on the Plaintiffs on November 15, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1 or 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition should be revoked on the following grounds.
(1) Since the land in this case was developed for the purpose of constructing initial cultural and assembly facilities, it falls under projects subject to imposition of development charges.