[1] Whether "the total floor area of an existing building" under Article 6 (2) of the Infrastructure Charges Act can be deemed as "the total floor area of an existing building within the same site" (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that a disposition imposing infrastructure charges is lawful on the construction of a new residential sports facility, which is a multi-family building with a total floor area of not more than 200§³ in an apartment complex, on the ground that the total floor area of all buildings, including apartment buildings, exceeds 200

[1] Generally, an act of constructing a building includes not only "new construction of a building," but also "extension", and an act of constructing a separate building with a total floor area of not more than 200§³ in the same site (in cases where the total floor area of a building exceeds 200§³ but the total floor area of an individual building is not more than 200§³) is excluded from the subject of imposition of infrastructure charges even though it creates a result of a new construction act, such as the purpose and legislative intent of the Act on Infrastructure Charges, it is contrary to the purpose of the Act on Infrastructure Charges, and thus, it is necessary to take the subject of imposition of infrastructure charges in such cases as well as the need for installation, maintenance, or improvement of infrastructure charges. In principle, if there is an existing building within the same site, it is judged whether the existing building is subject to imposition including the total floor area of the existing building, and further, considering the fact that the total floor area excluded from the total floor area is within the scope of legislative discretion of the legislator, it should be interpreted as including the total floor area of the existing building within the same site.

[2] The case holding that a disposition imposing infrastructure charges is lawful on the construction of a new residential sports facility, which is a multi-family building with a total floor area of not more than 200m2 in an apartment complex, by deeming that the total floor area of all buildings, including apartment buildings, exceeds 20m2

[1] Article 2 subparag. 2, subparag. 3, and Article 6(2) of the Infrastructure Charges Act / [2] Article 2 subparag. 2, subparag. 3, and Article 6(2) of the Infrastructure Charges Act

The council of occupants' representatives of Seocho-Saununan apartment (Law Firm Maelim, Attorney Kim Jong-il, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

The head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

August 14, 2007

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 26,216,00 against the Plaintiff on March 22, 2007 is revoked.

1. Details of the imposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the managing body of the Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, the Seocho-gu apartment building built on the land and on the ground of the Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul. The current building status of the Seocho-gu apartment building is as follows (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment building, etc.”).

A building name in the name of the attached building located in the head of Seocho-si, a 45,939.2m22,145.44m2 in total floor area of 9,226.37m2 in a general residential area of 14m2 in the area of general residential area of 9,226.37m2 in the area of 45,939m2 in the name of a building located in the head of the Gu.

B. On December 28, 2006, the Plaintiff decided to newly construct a resident sports facility with a total floor area of 90.4 square meters in order to use it as a fishing big place used by apartment residents (hereinafter “instant building”) within an apartment complex, and obtained permission for new construction of apartment houses (welfare facilities) pursuant to Article 42(2)2 of the Housing Act from the Defendant on December 28, 2006, and received a pre-use inspection on April 23, 2007 after completing the construction.

C. The Defendant deemed that “the total floor area of an existing building” under Article 6(2) Subparag. 2 of the Infrastructure Charges Act (hereinafter “the Act”) refers to “the total floor area of an existing building within the same site” (Article 3(2) of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation Directive No. 629), and imposed on March 22, 2007 on the Plaintiff KRW 26,216,000 of the infrastructure charges calculated as follows (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

- - Sound

· Infrastructure charges = [Standard facility cost for infrastructure + conversion coefficient of site for each region 】 coefficient of causing individual land price for each building 】 average/location of each Si/Gun/Gu] ¡¿ [total floor area of permission for extension - total area of expansion of a parking lot] 】 burden

- 26,216,00 won [(58,00 + 0.3 + 0.3 ¡¿ 1 ¡¿ 4,640,00) ¡¿ (90.4-0) ¡¿ 20/100] ¡¿ (100-0*)/100*]

* It is calculated as "0" because it is not subject to exclusion or reduction as set forth in Article 8 of the Act.

** In the instant case, the assessment was based on “(100-0)/100” as it is not subject to exclusion or reduction under Article 8 of the Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 4 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The total floor area must be calculated on the premise of one building. The building of this case is a building separate from the apartment of this case in terms of structure, function, size, etc.

The purport of Article 6(2) of the Act is that “including the total floor area of an existing building” is to add up the total floor area of an existing building (the same building that existed prior to the extension or the building that existed prior to the reconstruction prescribed in paragraph (3) of the same Article) and the total floor area of an existing building in the event of the extension of a building, and it does not mean that the total floor area of all separate buildings that are not subject to imposition should be added up. Therefore, if the total floor area of the apartment of this case is excluded, the total floor area of the building of this case is not more than 20 square meters and is not subject to infrastructure charges. Nevertheless, it is unlawful for the Defendant to impose the disposition of this case by erroneously interpreting Article 6(2) of the Act and adding up the total floor area

(2) The purport of the provisions of Article 42 of the Housing Act is that incidental facilities or welfare facilities are subject to regulation as well as multi-family housing, and thus, it does not change the purpose of use of buildings as stipulated in Article 2(1)2-2 of the Building Act, Article 3-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and attached Table 1. Nevertheless, the Defendant deemed the instant building, which is a resident sports facility, as the same purpose as multi-family housing, and applied the trigger coefficient under Article 9 of the Act, Article 8(5) and [attached Table 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act. Thus, in this regard, the instant disposition

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Markets:

(1) Under Article 67 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), the purpose of this Act is to improve the quality of life of the people by securing financial resources necessary for the establishment, maintenance, or improvement of infrastructure caused by the construction of a building and by promoting the rational use of land (Article 1).

Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the National Land Planning Act provides that "infrastructure" means roads, parks, green areas, water supply, sewerage, schools (including elementary, middle and high schools), waste disposal facilities (including incidental facilities and convenience facilities necessary for the display and use of their own functions), "construction activities" under Article 2 (1) 2 of the Building Act, and "infrastructure charges" under subparagraph 3 of Article 2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act means the amount imposed and collected by the Minister of Construction and Transportation in accordance with the provisions of this Act in order to install infrastructure caused by construction activities under subparagraph 2 or to secure sites necessary therefor.

In other words, infrastructure charges are to bear the cost of expanding infrastructure when the construction act causes new infrastructure as a result of the construction act in question, to the person who constructs the building according to the area and purpose of the extended building.

(2) In this case, the Plaintiff first asserts that the total floor area of the same building that existed before the extension of the building is merely the sum of the total floor area of the same building that existed before the extension of the building, but it does not mean that the aggregate of the total floor area of the separate building within the site that is not related to the building act is included not only in the "new construction of the building" but also in the "extension" (Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Building Act, Article 2 (1) 9 of the Building Act), and (2) where a separate building with the total floor area of not more than 200 square meters is successively constructed (the total floor area of the building is more than 200 square meters but not more than 20 square meters of the total floor area of the building), the Plaintiff argues that the construction of the building should be excluded from the aggregate of the total floor area of the existing building [including the part subject to the imposition of the total floor area of the 200 square meters of the building, which includes the existing building's total floor area subject to the imposition of the Act].

(3) Next, the plaintiff asserts that the application of the inducing coefficient by deeming the building of this case, which is a sports facility, as the same purpose as the apartment house, is unlawful. Thus, according to Article 8(5) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Infrastructure Charges Act, the inducing coefficient of apartment houses and sports facilities, all of which are "1.0" and there is no difference in the amount of the same charges, etc., and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit (this case's disposition is without merit).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim is groundless, and it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-hwan (Presiding Justice)