(b) The case holding that there is an error of incomplete deliberation as to whether the site creation work subject to the development charges is accompanied;

(b) The case holding that there is an error of incomplete hearing as to whether the site creation work subject to the development charges is accompanied;

(1) Article 5 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563, Jun. 11, 1993; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and subparagraph 1 of the attached Table 1, which stipulate the project subject to the imposition of development charges, classify housing site development projects as one type of the project subject to the imposition of development charges, and include the site creation which is implemented by a person who has obtained approval for housing construction project for housing construction under the Housing Construction Promotion Act, as one of the projects subject to the imposition of the same. The "housing site creation" includes not only the siteization of land which is not a site through the act of changing the form and quality of land such as cutting, banking, stop work, reclamation, etc., but also the construction work to increase utility as a site even if it is the original site, if it does not result in a housing site preparation project or it is accompanied by a housing site preparation project, and if it does not require a separate housing site creation project, the relevant part subject to the imposition of development charges.

According to the judgment of the court below and the records, among the land of this case which the court below held as subject to development charges, the land of this case is 14,721 m2, 496-2, Woman-dong 496-2, Woman-dong 496-2, Woman-dong 496-2 shall be a site in the real estate register (Evidence 5-1, A), or an application for approval for a project plan (Evidence 7) submitted as evidence in the court below. The project cost item is only included in the item of the project cost according to the application for approval of the project plan, but it is sufficient to raise questions as to whether the building site creation work cost was not accompanied by the real estate registration work. Thus, the court below should order this point to determine whether this part of the land is subject to development charges, but it should not reach this point, and the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the subject of development charges, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. This point has merit.

(2) The lower court calculated the instant development charges, based on the value of the land to be imposed at the time of completion of the development project, on the grounds that the time of completion of the development project was deemed to be November 20, 1991, and that the sale price does not constitute the disposal price restricted by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

However, according to the evidence duly examined by the court below, the plaintiff established an efficient mutual aid system for military personnel and civilian employees under the Military Mutual Aid Association Act for the purpose of promoting the stability of livelihood and welfare of military personnel and civilian employees, and contributing to the improvement of the military power of the national army, and is subject to supervision over the business by the Minister of National Defense through approval of the budget, settlement of accounts, approval of the amendment of the articles of incorporation, etc. Furthermore, according to Article 26 (4) of the articles of incorporation of the plaintiff corporation based on the above law, "the acquisition, disposal, security and budget of real estate" must be approved by the Minister of National Defense for the main new businesses not included in the plaintiff corporation's business. Thus, the plaintiff corporation set the purchase price of the housing of this case as the welfare business of its members at a level of at least five percent higher than the average sale price of neighboring private apartments approved by the head of the Si/Gun under the Rules on Housing Supply, and obtained approval from the Minister of National Defense on July 13, 190 after obtaining approval from the Minister of National Defense on September 24 through the same day.

If the facts are as above, "if a project operator disposes of housing in lots, etc." under Article 9 (3) 2 of the Act is "if a project operator disposes of housing in lots, etc., it is possible to regard the timing of sale as the time of completion of the development project, notwithstanding the separate date of completion of the development project (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu12841 delivered on May 11, 1993). In this case, as of September 27, 190, the time of sale in lots, etc. is the time of disposal in lots, Article 10 (2) and Article 9 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the newly established Act as of September 13, 191 (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13465 delivered on September 13, 199) and the circumstances and contents of the sale in lots determined by the Plaintiff corporation's association and its supervisory organization based on the Military Mutual Aid Association Act and its articles of association, it can be confirmed that the sale price falls under the above provision of Article 10 (2).

(3) The judgment below is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)