[2] In a case where there is an assertion that a housing site within an urban design district is not subject to the charges for excess ownership, whether the pertinent housing site includes the purport that the housing site is excluded from the imposition due to the non-public notice of urban design (affirmative)

[2] In a housing site within an urban design district may vary depending on the time when the public announcement date of urban design is the date when the relevant housing site is the public announcement date, and in a case where there is an assertion that the relevant housing site is not subject to the imposition of excess ownership charges for the housing site as a housing site within an urban design district, the relevant housing site shall be considered to be subject to the imposition under Article 9-2 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 527 of Jun. 12, 1993), and shall be examined as to when the public announcement date of urban design includes the purport that the housing site is excluded from the subject of imposition.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the site in this case was not a site subject to imposition on the ground that the site in this case was not a site because it was not a site where construction was practically impossible under the latter part of Article 20 (1) 3 of the Act on Ownership of the Housing Site as a site located within the Hague-ro Urban Design District (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), on the ground that it is acknowledged that the price per day of the site in this case was designated as an urban design district on February 4, 1987 and that the urban design was already publicly announced without determining the time when the urban design was publicly announced by consultation with neighboring land owners or by exchange, etc. according to the contents of the design.

However, in light of the purport of Article 20(1)3 of the Act, Article 21-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1382 of May 10, 1993), and Article 9-2(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 527 of Jun. 12, 1993), or the principle of equity, it is reasonable for the court below to extend the period of the duty of use and development to the extent that the land actually impossible to be constructed because it falls under the site within the urban design district for which the urban design has not been publicly announced, as such circumstance exists (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu1999, Aug. 26, 199; 94Nu6277, Mar. 26, 1996; 94Nu41479, Apr. 26, 196).

Nevertheless, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion without taking such measures is erroneous in the incomplete hearing, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)