Where there is a change of the owner and correction of the imposition of the beneficiary charges after the completion of the urban planning project, the person liable to pay the beneficiary charges

Even if the plaintiff sold the land owned by the non-party after the completion of the land planning project, it shall be deemed that the non-party does not have any profit from the urban planning project, and it shall be deemed that the proviso of Article 3 (2) of the Ordinance on Collection of the Shared Amount by Beneficiaries of Urban Planning Project at the time of the imposition of the share of the beneficiary at the time of the first imposition of the share of the

Article 3(2) of the Act on Collection of Expenses Paid by Beneficiaries for Jeonju Urban Planning Project, Article 65(1) of the Urban Planning Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Jeonju Market

Gwangju High Court Decision 82Gu116 delivered on April 26, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 65 (1) of the Urban Planning Act, in a case where there is a person who benefits significantly from an urban planning project implemented by him, the executor of the urban planning project may bear part of the expenses required for the urban planning project within the scope of his benefits under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. The beneficiary charges pursuant to Article 56 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, which is the Presidential Decree, shall be borne within the limit of 1/2 of the expenses required for the urban planning project only in a case where the price of the land exceeds twice the sum of the naturally increased prices prior to the implementation of the project due to the implementation of the urban planning project, and shall not exceed 2/3 of the profits. According to the records, in appraising the market price of the land, Nonparty 1, who was adopted by the court below, shall not be considered as a small-scale parcel of land within the distance of the road where the urban planning project is implemented, taking into account the horizontal width, shape, surrounding environment, and other individual circumstances such as the utility value of the land.

2. Article 3(2) of the Ordinance on Collection of Shared Amount by Beneficiaries of Urban Planning Projects shall be imposed on the owner at the time of public announcement of the project implemented by the Mayor: Provided, That in the case of paragraph (3), if there is a confirmation that there are two or more persons who receive profits in the case of paragraph (2), the Mayor may allocate the shares in proportion to the amount of profits received by each beneficiary, and the imposition of share in paragraph (4) shall be made within one year from the date of completion of the project concerned.

According to the records, the 1112.4 square meters in Jeonju City ( Address omitted) was registered as the Plaintiff on May 4, 1979, which was at the time of the announcement of the Urban Planning Project, and the project was completed on September 30, 1980, the Defendant imposed KRW 31,237,136 on the Plaintiff on November 15, 198 on the ground that the 995 square meters out of the above land was remarkably benefited from the urban planning project within the 6th section of the Planning Project, and the Plaintiff raised an objection against the imposition of the above charges on the ground that some of the above land was sold, and the Defendant again conducted an investigation on the 66/1124 square meters out of the above land, and the 206/1124 square meters out of the above land was registered as the Plaintiff on October 14, 1969, and the 2000 square meters prior to the completion of the construction project, which was owned by Nonparty 2, 1970 meters prior to the above imposition of charges.

In addition, even if the plaintiff sold the above land ownership portion to the non-party 4, non-party 5, and non-party 6 on January 15, 1981 after the completion of the construction, as alleged by the plaintiff, it is not possible to adopt the theory on this point because it is not possible to adopt the theory on this point, since the plaintiff's sale of the above land ownership portion after the completion of the construction, it would not be able to benefit from the urban planning project. In addition, it is reasonable to impose the beneficiary charge on the owner at the time of imposition of the first charge as stated in the proviso of Article 3

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)