[2] The standard for determining the scale subject to development charges under Article 4 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (=the size of the pertinent land whose land category has been changed) in a case where there is a construction of a building extending over several parcels of land without a type of development act such as the act subject to permission for changing the form and quality of land, and there is a change of land category in fact

[2] In a case where there is a construction of a building extending over several parcels of land without the same type of development act as the act subject to permission for changing the form and quality of land, and there is a change of land category in fact or on the public record, the criteria for determining the scale subject to the imposition of development charges under Article 4 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15398 of Jun. 25, 1997) shall be reasonable on the basis of only the area of the land in

On May 18, 1995, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff completed the construction after obtaining a construction permit for neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "building of this case"), such as slive slive roof underground floor, general restaurants with the fourth floor above the above reinforced concrete structure, slive roof, and general restaurants with the fourth floor above (hereinafter referred to as the "building of this case"), among the land in the judgment of the court below on May 18, 1995, which is an urban planning zone pursuant to Article 8 of the Building Act (referring to all the land in the attached Table 1, 2, and 3 attached to the attached Table of the judgment of the court below; hereinafter the same shall apply). The court below held that the building of this case was used by the defendant on December 2, 1995, and that the land of this case was used by the defendant on October 9, 196, and the land of this case [referring to the land in the attached Table 2 attached to the judgment of the court below] changed its category from the previous land to the building.

Furthermore, in light of the provisions of Article 4(1) [Attachment 1] 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act and Article 3-2(2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the lower court determined that the construction project was not possible where the construction project was conducted to enhance the utility of the land in a state suitable for the construction of the building even if the land category is changed or its category is not changed or its category is not changed due to the act of cutting, filling, suspension, reclamation, etc. of the land, even if it was necessary for the construction of the building at the time of the construction permit, or where a separate cutting, filling, stop, reclamation, etc. was not required for the construction of the building, because it was for the construction of the building and it was insignificant that there was no need to obtain the permission for changing the form and quality of the land. Furthermore, the lower court determined that the construction project was not possible if the construction of the building was conducted solely on the ground of the construction permit, permission, etc., for the construction of the building in this case, even if the construction project did not constitute a retaining wall.

Article 5 (1) 10 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993 and enforced on Aug. 12, 1993; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "any development project subject to the change of land category, which is accompanied by the change of land category, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" as one subject to the imposition of development charges, and Article 4 [Attachment 1] 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13956 of Aug. 12, 1993 and amended by Presidential Decree No. 15398 of Jun. 25, 1997) provides that "any development project subject to the change of land category" under Article 5 (1) 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15409 of Aug. 30, 199) provides that "any construction project subject to the change of land category is actually accompanied by construction or due to the change of public record."

In addition, since the land category change is applied for by attaching the required relevant documentary evidence (see Article 20 of the Cadastral Act, Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 21 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, etc.), it cannot be readily concluded that the land category of this case is changed as a matter of course by the relevant laws and regulations merely because the land of this case was changed as a "the previous site". Thus, even if the land of this case has been used as a site much more than the building of this case, the plaintiff had constructed the building of this case, which is a neighborhood living facility on the land of this case after obtaining a building permit under the Building Act on May 18, 1995, and had it undergone a pre-use inspection on December 2, 195. Thus, the land of this case is likely to have been changed to a "the land category of this case actually due to the construction of the building of this case," and the land category change to the public register at the plaintiff's request.

However, in the event that there is a construction of a building extending over several parcels of land without a type of development act such as the act subject to permission for changing the form and quality of land, and there is a change of land category in fact or on the public register, it is reasonable to determine the scale subject to the imposition of development charges under Article 4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, which is only based on the area of the land in question. In addition, the court below determined that the land in this case is not subject to the imposition of development charges because it is less than 660m2, which is the size of the development project subject to the imposition of development charges, and the above additional decision of the court below is just, and there is no influence on the conclusion that the disposition in this

Ultimately, we cannot accept the argument in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)