Appropriateness of the method of assessment as to whether a "low profit" exists, which is a requirement for imposing the beneficiary's charge by a specific value based on a sample lot price.

The existence of significant profits, which are the requirements for imposing the burden on beneficiaries of urban planning justice, shall be determined by individually assessing the relevant land. Thus, even if the local self-employed organizations, which are the project implementers, determined to assess the increase of land price by the aggregate value calculated based on the sample lot price, which is calculated based on the municipal ordinances of the local self-employed organizations, such work process guidelines itself cannot be deemed null and void. However, if the price of the relevant land has not increased above the standard prescribed in Article 65 of the Urban Planning Act and Article 56 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, it cannot be deemed that there is significant profits even if the aggregate value of the entire land under the above ordinances has increased.

Article 65 of the Urban Planning Act, Article 56(1) of Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu41 Decided April 13, 1982 81Nu400 Decided June 22, 1982

Plaintiff 1 and eight others

Jeonju Market

Gwangju High Court Decision 83Gu13 decided May 10, 1983

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu213 Decided December 28, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

Article 65 of the Urban Planning Act and Article 56 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be determined individually by evaluating the relevant land, the price of which has risen (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu41, Apr. 13, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 81Nu400, Jun. 22, 1982). Therefore, even if the municipal ordinance of a local government, which is a project executor, provides that the increase of the price of the land shall be assessed based on the aggregate value calculated based on the sample price of the land, it is merely a mere determination of the internal work guidelines by a convenient method, and such guidelines cannot be deemed null and void, but if the price of the relevant land has not increased above the standard under Article 65 of the Urban Planning Act and Article 56 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, it shall not be deemed that there is a significant benefit even if the combined value of the entire land under the above municipal ordinance has increased.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the individual price of each land of this case exceeds twice the total amount of natural increase in the price before the implementation of the project, as stipulated in Article 56 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, and rather, it is recognized that the amount has not increased according to the result of appraisal by the appraiser before the remand of the court below, so it is not subject to the beneficiary charge under Article 65 (1) of the Urban Planning Act.

However, even if the combined value after the project implementation based on the sample price under the Ordinance on Collection of Beneficiary Charges for Urban Planning Project at Jeonju-si exceeds twice the total value of the project before the project implementation, it cannot be said that there is a significant benefit, which is a requirement for imposing the beneficiary charges, and the theory of lawsuit is not a proper precedent in this case.

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

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)