개발부담금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff B's lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. Development charges imposed by the Defendant against Plaintiff A on July 6, 2015 KRW 42,91,750.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 21, 2014, Plaintiff A obtained permission for development for site creation of Class II neighborhood living facilities (F stores: Plaintiff A) (hereinafter “instant land”) from the Defendant on the instant land, and obtained approval for use from the Defendant on March 22, 2015, for extension of Class II neighborhood living facilities (F stores) 27.2 square meters on the instant land on the instant land after completing site creation. < Amended by Act No. 13572, Mar. 2, 2015>
B. On July 6, 2015, the Defendant imposed development charges at KRW 42,91,750 on the instant land on the ground that development gains under the Restitution of Development Gains Act (hereinafter “Development Gains Restitution Act”) have arisen.
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence 1-2 through 4, Gap evidence 4, 5, and 1-2, Eul evidence 5 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on this safety defense (determination as to the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit)
A. The defendant is only the plaintiff A, and the defendant did not make any disposition against the plaintiff B, and the plaintiff's lawsuit is unlawful. The plaintiff B's lawsuit is a defense of safety to the effect that it is unlawful.
(See preparatory brief dated 15, 2016). (b)
According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 10, 11, and 5, the other party to the disposition of this case is the plaintiff A, and it can be known that the defendant did not have any disposition against the plaintiff B. Thus, the plaintiff B's lawsuit is seeking the revocation of a non-existent disposition, and no specific circumstance exists to deem that there is any legal interest in seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case against the plaintiff B.
C. Therefore, the plaintiff B's lawsuit is illegal, and the defendant's main defense pointing this out is with merit.
3. Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim
A. The plaintiff A's assertion that the plaintiff A had been asserted.