beta
(영문) 대법원 1982. 5. 25. 선고 81누8 판결

[수익자부담금부과처분취소][집30(2)특,45;공1982.8.1.(685) 612]

Main Issues

Whether a beneficiary charge may be collected in cases where the revenue from the sale of land gratuitously reverted to a project implementer due to the implementation of an urban planning project can be fully appropriated for project expenses (affirmative)

Summary of Judgment

Even if there is income from the sale of land gratuitously reverted to an urban planning project operator, such circumstance does not affect the share of the beneficiary, which is a system that enables the special beneficiary due to the implementation of the project to bear part of the expenses required for the project within the scope of the profit. Therefore, even where the proceeds from the sale of land gratuitously reverted can be appropriated for all the project expenses, a beneficiary's share may

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 65 and 83 of the Urban Planning Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant-Appellee

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Judgment of the lower court

Gwangju High Court Decision 79Gu18 delivered on December 3, 1980

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Reasons

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the legal reasoning established by the court below, in implementing the urban planning project, Gwangju City, which is an executor of the project, is aware that the cost of the project is more than KRW 75,640,000 after the completion of the construction work, on the condition that the construction of new public facilities would be disused to the project operator and the site for the closure will be transferred to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party after the completion of the construction work, and that the price would be paid in advance for the project expenses, and the above non-party would receive KRW 11,00,00 from the above non-party for the advance payment of the price for the project expenses. Under the above agreement after the completion of the construction, the payment of the price for the closure and the site for the closure will be paid for the project expenses. The decision of the court below is just and reasonable in light of the purport of Article 83 (1) of the Urban Planning Act, which is merely a separate opinion from the beneficiary's interest to the land, and there is no special reason to be imposed on the beneficiary's interest to the land.

With respect to the second ground:

According to Article 3(4) of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Ordinance No. 220 and Ordinance No. 342 of September 19, 1978), which was enacted on the basis of Article 65(4) of the Urban Planning Act at the time of the imposition of this case, the beneficiary charges shall be imposed only on the urban planning projects falling under any of the following subparagraphs. The following projects are listed as follows: 1. Construction or expansion of roads or squares 2. 3. Do road packing works; 3. Do road construction or improvement works; 3. According to the records, the urban planning project is a major 3th-class street construction and construction of the same 3th-class road, which is an urban planning project in Gwangju City, and the establishment of roads with 100 meters wide and 100 meters wide and 100 meters wide and 4 meters wide as the project implementer in Gwangju City, and thus, it cannot be seen that the judgment of the court below is justified to impose the above 3. Do road planning project charges on the beneficiary.

With respect to the third point:

In examining the relevant evidence adopted by the court below, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the price of the land in this case owned by the plaintiff was increased more than 2 times than the amount including natural increase in the price before the implementation of the project, and there is no error of law of mistake of facts such as theory of lawsuit. There is no argument.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)