beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.06.19 2017구합61196

개발부담금부과처분취소

Text

1. The Defendant’s imposition of development charges of KRW 94,956,070 against the Plaintiff on November 14, 2016 in KRW 33,136,790.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 22, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the 370 m3,926 m2 (hereinafter “instant land”). On July 16, 2008, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit for the instant land for the purpose of use of warehouse facilities. On June 2, 2013, upon revocation of the said building permit, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit for the instant land, and obtained a building permit for the purpose of building a warehouse and a site for a neighborhood living facility on June 20, 2013.

B. A warehouse and neighborhood living facilities newly built on the instant land due to the said development project obtained approval for use on March 7, 2016, and the land category of the instant land was changed to a warehouse site on April 7, 2016.

C. On November 14, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing development charges of KRW 94,956,070 on the instant land (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that development gains prescribed by the Restitution of Development Gains Act (hereinafter “Development Gains Restitution Act”) have arisen, and the details of the imposition are as follows. The grounds for calculating development costs among them are as stated in the “amount to be examined” column of attached Table 1.

(A) Development costs claimed by the Plaintiff are as follows: 1,396,246,089 won at the time of completion of imposition (as of March 7, 2016, the date of approval for use of the building of this case): Land price of the starting point of imposition (as of June 20, 2013, the date of permission for development acts): 374,214,189 won: 39: Development costs: 39,354,962 won: 602,852,620 won: 5) development gains: 379,824,318 [1] 6] development charges: Development charges; 94,956,070 [5] x 0.25, 100 won; 4,000 won; 52,620 won; 52,318 won; 6]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On or after June 20, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted by the Plaintiff, who received permission for development activities, performed the soil construction work of the instant land.

On the other hand, for the above soil construction, 17,489 cubic aggregate was put into 17,489 cubic meters, and accordingly, the expenses for the soil construction calculated by the standard unitum are 226,567.