[2] If the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs determines to impose development charges, whether Article 15(1) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act stipulating that the person liable for payment shall issue a notice for payment specifying the amount to be paid, grounds for calculation, deadline for payment, and place

Article 15(1) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Act”) and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2443, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) provide that the initial imposition decision shall lose independent value by absorbing the imposition of the development charges and the development charges (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du11760, Mar. 30, 2007). Moreover, Article 15(1) of the same Act and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2443, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) provides that the person liable to pay shall be subject to the imposition of the development charges, including the amount to be paid, payment deadline, and place for payment specified therein, and shall be excluded from the imposition of the charges.

According to the judgment of the court below and the reasoning of the court of first instance cited by the court below, on December 1, 2009, the Defendant imposed development charges of KRW 826,342,920 on the Plaintiff on December 1, 2009. On October 31, 2011, the Defendant issued a notice of correction to correct the development charges of KRW 984,629,700 and served on the Plaintiff on November 4, 2011. The Defendant issued a notice of correction to the effect that the said notice was served on the Plaintiff on November 9, 2011, and served on the Plaintiff on the notice of payment of KRW 158,286,780, which was increased to the Plaintiff on November 14, 201, the Plaintiff claimed an administrative appeal for revocation of the imposition charges of KRW 984,629,700 on the Central Land Expropriation Committee on May 7, 2012. The Central Land Expropriation Committee, after the above notice of correction was served on the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal

The first instance court accepted the Defendant’s defense that the instant lawsuit filed after a ruling to dismiss the Plaintiff’s administrative appeal for which the period for appeal had expired from the date of service of the correction notice was served was unlawful, and rejected the instant lawsuit. The lower court upheld the first instance judgment, along with the grounds that the said notice was merely an act to correct the defects of the said corrective notice, and that it is reasonable to deem the correction notice as a correction disposition, as a correction disposition, by delivering the correction notice in attached Form 6 as specified in Article 14 of the Enforcement Rule of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”).

However, in light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below and the first instance court for the following reasons.

Article 15(1) of the Act and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, which provides that a necessary entry shall be issued at the time of the determination of development charges, shall also apply to a corrective disposition for increase, which is a new disposition. The corrective notice of this case lacks the due date and place of payment among the necessary stated matters in the payment notice, and the corrective notice of this case contains the due date and place of payment. Since the corrective notice of this case contains the due date and place of payment in the corrected payment notice of this case, it is reasonable to deem the corrective notice of this case as the corrective corrective disposition instead of the corrective notice of this case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal lawfully within 180 days from the date of issuance of the corrected notice of payment, which is "the date of disposition" as provided by Article 27 (6) and (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act, and that is, within 180 days from the date of service of the written ruling, and thus, it is sufficient to deem that the instant lawsuit was lawfully filed within 90 days from the date of service of the written ruling, but the first instance court determined otherwise and dismissed the instant lawsuit, and the lower court upheld the first instance judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed. Since this case is sufficient for the Supreme Court to directly render a judgment, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the case shall be remanded to the court of first instance for a new trial and determination pursuant to the main sentence of Article 418 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)