개발부담금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
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 in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts added, thereby citing it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The following shall be added to the 5th day of the first instance judgment, 7th day of the 7th day.
In addition, according to the overall purport of the plaintiffs' reference documents and arguments on November 13, 2017, the building permission for the building of this case was originally made on July 31, 2009, but was not constructed. On November 4, 2013, the building construction began on May 9, 2014 after it received a reply from the Ministry of Government Legislation that the use of the building of this case can be changed from the art gallery to the neighborhood living facilities.
The following shall be added to the 5th 10 pages of the judgment of the first instance:
4) Meanwhile, Article 21 of the Administrative Procedures Act, which provides that the Plaintiffs shall notify the parties of the fact that the instant disposition was the cause for the disposition, details of the disposition, and legal basis (Article 21 of the Administrative Procedures Act). (1) Where an administrative agency imposes an obligation on the parties or imposes a disposition that restricts their rights and interests, it shall notify the parties of
1. Title of the disposition;
2. Names or titles and domiciles of the parties;
3. The grounds for the disposition and the details of the disposition and legal basis;
4. Advices that opinions may be submitted on the items of subparagraph 3 above and the processing methods when no opinions are submitted;
5. Name and address of the institution to present opinions.
6. Time limit for submitting opinions.
7. Other necessary matters are alleged to be unlawful in violation of Article 4 and 8. However, according to the evidence Nos. 4 and 8, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff and F of the submission of a statement of calculation of development costs on July 29, 2016, and indicated that the instant change of use constitutes a project subject to the imposition of development charges in accordance with attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Development Gains Refund Act, and made the instant disposition against the Plaintiffs on November 15, 2016.