개발부담금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added the following judgment to the pertinent part as to the contents asserted by the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 42
2. Additional determination
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff paid the purchase price of the land in this case to B, plus the development costs for land category change and profits from development. Thus, the plaintiff is not the plaintiff but the actual person to whom development gains from the development project in this case accrue, and therefore the plaintiff is not liable to pay development charges.
(b) The project implementer falling under the subparagraphs of Article 6(1) and 6(1) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (person liable to pay) shall be obligated to pay development charges, as prescribed by this Act.
Provided, That in cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs, the relevant person shall pay development charges:
1. Person who entrusts or contracts out, where the development projects are entrusted or subcontracted;
2. Where a development project is implemented by leasing land owned by another person, the owner of the relevant land.
3. Where a person succeeds to the status of a project operator or to the status of a person falling under subparagraph 1 or 2 before completion of the development project, the person who succeeds to the status of the project operator shall be the person liable to pay development charges. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land, the original land category of which was forest and field, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s future on July 11, 2013, and contracted the construction of the instant factory building to H after obtaining a building permit for the instant factory building from his/her owner as the owner, and thereafter, obtained approval for the use of the instant factory building on December 18, 2013, and accordingly, obtained the land category of the instant land as the factory site on December 30, 2013.