Park Dog-young

The Yangju Market

April 6, 2006

Suwon District Court Decision 2004Guhap2634 Delivered on May 30, 2005

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of development charges of KRW 105,864,240 against the Plaintiff on November 27, 2003 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the court’s explanation on the instant case is to correct the “167-1 of the Gyeyang-si, Yangyang-si, 17, the third party of the first instance judgment,” and (b) it is identical to the reasoning for the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgments as to the newly asserted matters in this court; and (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Additional Part】

The defendant asserts that even though the actual width of a 347 local road abutting on the west of the key land (hereinafter referred to as the "west road") is merely about 5 meters and that the above road constitutes the "side (Ga)", the above road constitutes a "subsection" in which the width of the road abutting on the north of the key land (hereinafter referred to as "North-west road") is not less than 8 meters, the key land constitutes a "subsection" rather than a "subsection (Ga).

However, in an appeal litigation claiming the revocation of an administrative disposition, an administrative agency can add or modify other grounds for disposition only to the extent that the original grounds and basic facts are identical to those of the original disposition, and it is not allowed to assert other grounds for disposition on the grounds of separate facts for which the basic facts are not recognized as identical (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du5016, May 28, 2004; 200Du8684, Sept. 28, 2001, etc.).

However, with regard to the instant disposition by the Defendant, which calculated the development charges on the premise that the instant land, including the key land, is “the vertical length”, and the Seowest road is “the Seowest road”, this part of the record reveals the following issues: (a) whether the Plaintiff is a road adjacent to the northwest of the instant land; (b) whether the instant land is “the vertical length” or “the Seowest road,” if any,” or “the Seowest road.”

Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the north-west road falls under the category of “small road,” unlike the previous assertion, and thus, regardless of whether the Seo-west road falls under the category of “small road” or “small road,” can not be added to or modified as a new ground for disposition, since it is apparent that the original ground for disposition and the factual basis thereof are not identical. This part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Judge) Jin-sung (Presiding Judge)