Law Firm International Law Firm, Attorney Exclusive charge

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On December 30, 2002, the Plaintiff is a reconstruction improvement project association which obtained authorization from the Defendant, and on July 15, 2005, the Plaintiff is promoting the housing reconstruction improvement project (hereinafter referred to as the “project”).

나. 한편, 원고는 2003년 6월경 이 사건 사업을 진행하면서 피고에게 지구단위계획 주민제안을 하였고, 구 학교용지확보 등에 관한 특례법(2005. 3. 24 법률 제7397호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조의 규정에 따라 관할 교육감의 의견을 수렴하는 절차를 거쳤는데, 교육감의 위임을 받은 ■■교육청 교육장은 피고에게 "●●초등학교의 학생수용 계획을 검토한 결과, 현재 증축중인 별동 교사에 교실을 추가로 증축할 경우 학생수용 이 가능하다"는 의견 회신을 보냄과 동시에 원고에게 "이 사건 사업으로 인하여 총 577 세대가 새롭게 증가하고, 이로 인한 초등학교 학생수 증가는 204명으로 예상되며, 그 결과 7학급 정도의 증설이 필요하다"는 내용의 구체적인 의견을 제시하면서 그 증축비용 756,100,000원을 기탁해 줄 것을 요청하였다.다. 원고는 이에 따라 2003. 12. 8. ●●초등학교에 756,100,000원을 학교발전기금으로 기탁하였고(이하 '이 사건 기탁금'이라 한다), 이 사건 기탁금은 2004. 4. 9. 부산광역시 교육비 특별회계에 세입조치되었다.

D. After that, on December 18, 2007, the Defendant imposed 211,272,000 won of the charges for the instant school site on the Plaintiff based on Article 5 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Acquisition, etc. of School Sites (amended by Act No. 8970, Mar. 21, 2008) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On February 20, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection in accordance with Article 43 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, and is currently underway with the Board of Audit and Inspection.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including additional numbers), Eul's testimony, fact-finding results on the elementary school of BUBS in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Claim on the prohibition of double charge imposition

The plaintiff is a kind of charge as defined in Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Management of Charges, and its purpose and purpose are the same in comparison with the charges for school sites of this case. Thus, even if the charges are not imposed on the same subject of imposition pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the Framework Act on the Management of Charges, the defendant asserts that the disposition of this case, which was imposed on the plaintiff again, is unlawful, and the defendant asserts that the deposit money of this case was paid voluntarily by the plaintiff to obtain authorization for the implementation of the project, and that it does not constitute the charges.

(2) The assertion about deviation and abuse of discretionary power

The Plaintiff paid the instant deposit money in the same manner as the instant school site charges. At the time, the laws and regulations stipulate that the entity liable for the charge of the instant school site charges shall be the one who bought multi-unit houses, etc. with respect to the entity liable for the charge of the instant school site charges, and thus, it could not be anticipated at all that the Plaintiff would be subject to the charge of the instant school site charges. The Defendant alleged that the imposition of the instant school site charges is excessively excessive burden on the Plaintiff, and that the development project implementer under Article 5(4)1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Acquisition, etc. of School Site Charges should exempt the Plaintiff from the charge of the instant school site charges in the case of donation of the school site presented by the superintendent of education according to Article 3(3) to the special accounts of City/Do educational expenses. In that sense, the instant disposition should also be applied to the instant case, which has been placed in excess of discretion or abused, and the Defendant asserted that the instant school site charges were subject to the imposition of the charges under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Acquisition, etc. of the Charges.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

We examine the abuse of discretionary power.

The purpose of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Securing, etc. of School Sites is to facilitate the existing school expansion in the vicinity where it is impossible to procure school sites or procure school sites, and charges for school sites means expenses to be collected by the Mayor/Do Governor to secure school sites or to procure existing school sites in the vicinity where it is impossible for the person who implements development projects to procure school sites or procure school sites. When a development project implementer intends to develop school sites or procure school sites, he/she shall hear the opinions of the superintendent of education and appropriate it as property of the special account for educational expenses in the City/Do

앞서 살펴 본 바와 같이 원고는 관할 교육감의 위임을 받은 ■■교육청 교육장과 협의를 거쳐 인근의 ●●초등학교 증축을 위하여 이 사건 기탁금을 기탁한 바 있고, 그 후 이 사건 기탁금은 부산광역시 교육비 특별회계에 세입조치되었으며 이를 활용하여 교실을 증축하면 학교설립요인이 해결될 수 있는 점, 학교용지확보 등에 관한 특례법 제5조 제4항 제1호는 개발사업시행자가 교육감의 의견으로 제시된 학교용지를 교육비 특별회계에 기부채납하는 경우에는 학교용지부담금을 면제하여야 한다고 규정하고 있는바, 이 사건 기탁금은 학교용지를 교육비 특별회계에 기부채납하는 경우와 비교할 때 목적물이 현금과 토지라는 점에서만 차이가 있을 뿐, 교육감의 의견 제시에 따른 점과 교육비 특별회계에 세입되는 점 및 학교증축에 사용된다는 점에서 동일하므로 피고로서는 학교용지확보 등에 관한 특례법 제5조 제4항 제1호를 유추적용하여 이 사건 학교용지부담금에서 적어도 이 사건 기탁금을 공제함이 상당하다(이는 사업시행인가의 조건에 이 사건 학교용지부담금 납부 의무가 명시되어 있다고 하여 달라질 것은 아니다 ; 부산지방법원 2008. 11. 27. 선고 2008구합1536호 학교용지부담금부과처분 취소 사건의 판결에 따르면, 부산광역시 ●●구청장은 2007.8.24. □□구역주택재개발조합에 학교용지부담금을 부과하면서 학교발전기금 기탁금 전액을 공제한 바 있다).

Therefore, when calculating the amount of the instant school site charges, the instant disposition is deemed unlawful since it was deemed that it exceeded or abused discretion in that it did not deduct the instant deposit money.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judge Sung-sung

Judges Kim Jong-chul