The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined together (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. We examine the legal principles regarding the deduction and refund of infrastructure charges.

A. The infrastructure charges system is to have the causing agent bear the cost of building, maintenance or improvement of infrastructure, such as roads, parks, green areas, water supply, sewerage, schools, waste disposal facilities, etc. caused by the construction of a building.

This was introduced and implemented by the Infrastructure Charges Act (hereinafter "Infrastructure Act"), but it was replaced by the imposition system of infrastructure costs newly established by the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter "National Land Planning Act") on March 28, 2008.

However, the repealed Act stipulated that the infrastructure charges to be imposed or refunded under the previous Act before the abolition shall be governed by the previous Act.

[Along with Article 2 of the Addenda of the Act on the Abolition of Infrastructure Charges (Act No. 9501 of March 28, 2008), “the Act” or “Enforcement Decree” simply refers to the Infrastructure Charges Act and its Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21038 of September 25, 2008). Under the Act prior to the repeal of the Act, the “infrastructure charges” provided that, in whole or in part, the “infrastructure charges paid by the person liable for payment of infrastructure charges under other Acts” or “construction costs” should be deducted from the “infrastructure charges” (Article 8(4) and (5) of the Act), where the area subject to permission has been reduced due to the cancellation of building permits, the revision of the construction plan, or any other similar cause” after the payment of infrastructure charges, the amount equivalent to the “payment” should be provided.

(Article 17(1) of the Act).