2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Two minutes of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

First of all, the plaintiff provided part of the previous land at the time of the land readjustment project after July 1974 and received the substitute land. According to Article 9 (1) 3 of the Ordinance on the Collection of Road Beneficiaries' Charges in Busan Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities, the beneficiary can be exempted from the charges, so the above imposition disposition by the defendant is unlawful. However, the case of providing the land in the above Ordinance refers to the case of providing the land in relation to the relevant road construction. However, there is no evidence to view that the plaintiff's offering of the land at the time of the land readjustment project was a deduction in relation to the street rearrangement project in this case. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is groundless.

In addition, the plaintiff argues that the above site is illegal since the above site is adjacent to the intersection of this case and the intersection of industrial road, and according to Article 5 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Ordinance on Collection of Charges on Road Beneficiaries of Busan Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities, it is listed as one of the grounds for exemption from the charges. Therefore, the defendant's above disposition of imposition is justified. However, the meaning of the above provision is that it is exempted from the beneficiary charges due to the intersection, as alleged by the plaintiff, and it does not exempt the beneficiary charges due to all kinds of

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the charge should be exempted pursuant to Article 5 subparagraph 4 of the above Rule because the above building is constructed on the above site. However, Article 5 subparagraph 4 of the above Rule provides that the plaintiff is exempted from the charge for the land without a building, which cannot be constructed on the area and the district, and it does not include a provision that is exempt from the charge for the land on which a building is located, as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no provision that is to that effect in the above Ordinance and the Rules. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is groundless.

In addition, the plaintiff argues that each disposition of the defendant is unlawful since it is against the principle of equity that the plaintiff did not impose the beneficiary charge on the road construction in this case after the Busan Metropolitan City and Busan Metropolitan City did not impose the beneficiary charge on the part of the Busan Metropolitan City. However, even if there is no evidence to acknowledge that the beneficiary charge was not imposed on the above repair repair work, the above disposition is not illegal just because of the fact of domestic affairs, and even if there are such circumstances, the above disposition is not only illegal but also illegal. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is groundless.

Finally, the plaintiff asserts that there is an error in the calculation of the amount to be borne by mistake in interpreting and applying the provisions of the above ordinances and rules concerning (1) limit of imposition area, (2) method of calculating significant profits, and (3) reduction of charges for the land adjacent to the intersection.

(1) According to the provisions of Article 2 subparagraph 2, Article 5 (2) subparagraph 3, and Article 5 (1) subparagraph 1 of the above Ordinance, in the case of the expansion of roads using roads together with the existing roads, such as the road in this case, the imposition zone on the side of the existing roads is limited to one times the expanded width of the road (the provisions of Article 4 subparagraph 2 (c) of the above Rules are contrary to the above rules, when the above Ordinance, which is a higher law, was completely amended on September 3, 1984, with respect to the contents of the restriction on the imposition zone delegated by the Rules, which are different from those of the above regulations, is newly established in the Ordinance itself, and are deemed to have been invalidated by establishing the above provisions of the above Ordinance, and the width of the extended road in this case is 25 meters prior to the above provision. Meanwhile, according to the contents of subparagraph 3-8 of the above Article, all of the above land owned by the plaintiff can be known to be subject to the charges on the road boundary of the road in this case.

(2) 위 조례 제4조, 제2조 제3호에 의하면 부담금액은 공사준공일 현재의 토지시가가 공사시행공고 당시의 토지시가에 자연상승치의 2배를 합산한 가액을 초과함으로 받게 되는 현저한 이익에 상응하는 금액의 1/2의 범위내에서 결정하게 되어 있고, 한편 위 을제5, 6호증의 각 기재내용과 감정인 신증업의 싯가감정결과(다만 이 감정결과중 뒤에서 믿지 아니하는 부분은 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면 위 각 대지의 이사건 공사시행공고 당시의 시가 및 공사 준공일 현재의 시가는 각 별지계산표 기재와 같고, 위 공사기간 동안의 위 각 대지시가의 자연적인 상승율은 약3퍼센트(16.8×(3/17)≒3), 그런데 위 조례 제2조 제4호는 도매물가상승치를 토지의 자연상승치로 보도록 규정하고 있으나, 이는 당해 토지시가의 자연상승치를 알 수 없는 경우에 도매물가상승치를 일응 그 기준으로 할 수 있다는 취지의 규정으로 풀이되고, 이사건에 있어서와 같이 당해 토지 그 자체의 자연상승치가 밝혀지는 경우에는 그에 따라야만 할 것이다.)인 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 이에 어긋나는 위 감정결과의 일부는 당원이 이를 믿지 아니하고, 달리 반증이 없는바, 위 인정사실을 기초로 위 각 대지의 이사건 도로공사로 인한 현저한 이익을 계산하여 보면, 각 별지 계산표 기재와 같이되며,

(3) According to Article 6 subparagraph 2 of the above Rule, in the case of cross-sections with 1/2 or more of the same width of a road constructed, the charges shall be reduced by 50 percent for the area on the side of another road with the limit of the extension line of 1/2 angles at each angle of the road at each angle. In full view of the whole purport of arguments as a result of on-site verification by a party member, the road of this case is cross-sections with an industrial road of about 35 meters wide as indicated in the separate sheet, and if a 1/2 angle of 199.75 square meters is extended at each angle of the north 160-6 site at each angle of the above 160-6 site, the fact that the 199.75 square meters from the above 160-6 site belongs to the above industry, and there is no other evidence. Meanwhile, the defendant's decision that the amount imposed on the road beneficiary should be 40% of the charges imposed on the above site, as stated in the separate sheet.

Therefore, each of the above dispositions by the defendant is legitimate within the scope of the legitimate amount of each of the above dispositions by the defendant, and the remaining parts shall not be exempted from being revoked as unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation of the whole amount of each of the above dispositions by the defendant shall be accepted only within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder shall be dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the bearing of litigation costs.

June 17, 1988

Judges Lee Jin-jin (Presiding Justice)

[Attachment Form Omission (Accounting Table, Drawings)]