기타(금전)
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the written reasoning as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
(1) The court below's findings and determination of the first instance court is justifiable in view of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff to this court, and there is no error as alleged in the ground for appeal by the plaintiff). The court of first instance's "the fact that the plaintiff has received specific legal benefits" of the 8th and 17th of the first instance court is added as follows.
[Specificly, in the case of the instant land, the standard and upper floor area ratio is below 400%, and the building-to-land ratio is below 60% according to the determination of the instant urban planning facility. However, according to the determination for modification of the instant district unit planning plan, the standard floor area ratio was below 1,00% (the upper floor area ratio is 1,50%) and the building-to-land ratio was below 90%. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was able to newly construct a building with 6th underground, 20 floors above the ground (floor ratio is 73.32%, 68.8%) on the ground of the first instance judgment (Evidence No. 7, 1) (the evidence No. 15), and added as follows.
“Around October 30, 2006, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land in approximately KRW 14.6 billion. The Plaintiff appears to have increased the market price of the said land in approximately KRW 25.5 billion according to the alteration of the instant district unit planning.”
2. Additional determination
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Even though the public contribution burden falls under the subsidiary of the beneficial administrative act (the instant district unit planning modification), this is contrary to the principle of prohibition of unfair decision-making, since there is no causal and objective relevance with the determination of modification of the said district unit plan, and thus, this goes against the principle of prohibition of unfair decision-making. (2) The instant agreement on the public contribution of this case is an abuse of the authority to modify the said district unit plan.