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 June 28, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained permission to engage in development activities from Gwangju City as the aggregate of 1,229 square meters of B forest land and C forest land and 1,671 square meters in Gwangju City as the site creation for Class I neighborhood living facilities (retail stores). On February 27, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained permission to engage in development activities as the aggregate of 2,816 square meters of the said land and D forest land and D forest land and 1,145 square meters in total (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the said land”; hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”), and obtained permission to engage in development activities for Class II neighborhood living facilities (manufacturing) (hereinafter referred to as “instant development projects”).
B. While promoting the instant development project, the Plaintiff applied for the revocation of the permission for development activities in Gwangju, and the Plaintiff’s application was accepted on July 7, 2014.
C. On December 30, 2015, the Defendant: (a) conducted on-site inspection of each of the instant lands; and (b) calculated the land price at the time of completion of each of the instant lands based on such consideration as “industrial site”; and (c) imposed development charges of KRW 191,085,170 on the Plaintiff regarding each of the instant lands.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). Specific calculation details are as follows:
(3) Development gains (i) 764,340,684, 684, 340, 6884 development charges (i) 191,084,085,17 / 17,000 won in normal increase in land prices, 157,037,211 development costs / 52,010,325,325 of the land value as at the time of termination of deduction (i) 993,335,816 of the land value at the time of termination of deduction (i) / e.g., : x 25%, and less than 00 won) / 191,085,170 / [unit : original : : won] / : The fact that there is no ground for recognition
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition
A. A. A summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the permission for development activities was revoked during the implementation of the instant development project, and such revocation ought to be seen as having never been carried out from the beginning in accordance with the retroactive effect of the revocation.
However, on the restitution of the development gains of the Gu.