Where development charges are imposed on the title holder who is not the actual operator of a development project, effects shall be imposed.

If development charges are imposed on the title holder who is not the actual operator of a development project, and the permission for the development project is granted under the name of the title holder who is not the actual operator of the development project, so long as there exist objective circumstances that can be seen as the operator of the development project, this is merely a misunderstanding of legal relations or facts with respect to the subject of the development charges, and even if such defect is found in the disposition, it cannot be objectively deemed that the defect is objectively obvious. Thus, this does not constitute grounds for revocation of the imposition of development charges

Article 4 subparag. 2 and Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu250 decided Nov. 12, 1985 (Gong1986,40) 91Nu6863 decided Apr. 28, 1992 (Gong1992,1742) 92Nu13127 decided Dec. 11, 1992 (Gong193Sang,487)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Sinjin-gun

Daejeon High Court Decision 93Gu522 delivered on July 16, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the development charges in this case are imposed on the plaintiff, despite the fact that the non-party, etc. who is the owner of the land in this case, was formally permitted by the plaintiff's name. The actual operator of this case's development project in this case's name was the non-party et al., and although the actual operator of this case's development project was the non-party et al., the defendant imposed the development charges on the plaintiff. The disposition of this case's development charges in this case's assertion that the plaintiff's imposition of the development charges in this case's assertion that the defects are clear and significant. However, if there are circumstances to believe that the development charges in this case's legal relations or factual relations which are subject to the development charges are not subject to the imposition of the development charges are subject to the imposition of the development charges in this case's case's imposition of the development charges in this case's case's case's imposition of the development charges in this case's case's imposition of the development charges in this case's case's specific facts can not be objectively justified.

In light of the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu250, Nov. 12, 1985; 91Nu6863, Apr. 28, 1992; 91Nu1304, Jul. 10, 1992; 91Nu1304, etc.). Thus, there is no reason to discuss the above determination by the court below.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)