1. On the first ground for appeal

Articles 2 and 3 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563, Jun. 11, 1993; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") define development gains as increases in land prices belonging to the development project operator or the landowner in excess of normal increases in land prices due to the execution of the development project, change of a land-use plan, or other social and economic factors. The development gains accruing in the area where the development project subject to the imposition of the development charges is implemented shall be collected as the development charges, and other development gains shall be collected as the excess gains. Thus, the development gains accruing from the land where the development project subject to the imposition of the charges is implemented shall be regarded as the development gains subject to the imposition of the development charges, regardless of the implementation of the development projects, or arising from the change of the land-use plan or other social and economic factors or all of the above two development gains.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff's project of changing the form and quality of land was conducted with the permission from the defendant to construct gas stations on September 26, 1994 and completed on February 17, 1995 as a development project subject to development charges. Development gains from the land in this case where the change of the form and quality of land was implemented constitute development gains subject to development charges, and development gains from the land in this case where the change of the form and quality of land was conducted as a part of the restricted act in the restricted development area, and the above change of the form and quality of land was performed as a compensation for the above development gains recovered at the price level of neighboring land or substantially correspond to the increase in normal land prices of neighboring land itself and thus cannot be subject to development charges. The judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to development gains and increase in normal land prices

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant calculated the land price at the time of termination of the imposition pursuant to the main sentence of Article 10 (1) of the Act and notified the plaintiff of the fact that on May 19, 195, the defendant imposed 560,052,310 won on the plaintiff on May 19, 195, but did not officially assessed land price in 1996 pursuant to the latter part of Article 10 (1) of the Act and Article 10 (5) of the Act, the land price at the time of termination of the imposition of the land of this case without the officially assessed land price in 1996 shall be determined as the arithmetic average of the appraised value appraised by two appraisal business entities. The above development charges shall be reduced to 280,436,210 won on March 6, 1996. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the imposition of land transaction permission and the imposition of the land price in this case. The court below did not accept the above land price in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)