Korea Land and Housing Corporation and two others (LLC, Attorneys Doh-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

B. Jeju Market (Law Firm Tae, Attorneys Kim Sung-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

May 23, 2019

Gwangju District Court Decision 2017Guhap12926 Decided August 30, 2018

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of development charges against the Plaintiff Korea Land and Housing Corporation of KRW 29,942,606,310, development charges imposed on the Plaintiff Gwangju Metropolitan City Corporation of KRW 16,759,44,750, development charges imposed on the Plaintiff Gwangju Metropolitan City Corporation of KRW 23,421,148,730, respectively, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The part on the imposition of development charges of KRW 29,942,606,310 against the plaintiff Korea Land and Housing Corporation on September 11, 2017 concerning KRW 28,191,49, and KRW 399, the part on the imposition of KRW 16,759, KRW 44,750 against the plaintiff Gwangju Metropolitan City Corporation; the part on the imposition of KRW 15,79, KRW 31,956 among the imposition of development charges of KRW 16,759, KRW 44, or KRW 1450 against the plaintiff Gwangju Metropolitan City Corporation; the part on the imposition of development charges of KRW 22,421, KRW 148,730 against the plaintiff Jeonnam Development

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

The part corresponding to the corporate tax to be reflected in development costs by seeking the revocation of all the development charges stated in the purport of the claim by the plaintiffs, and only the plaintiffs filed an appeal against the dismissed judgment of the first instance court. As such, the part corresponding to corporate tax to be reflected in the development costs revoked in the first instance court shall be excluded from the scope of the judgment of

2. cite the judgment of the court of first instance

The court's reasoning concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is affirmed as follows. Thus, the court's reasoning is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

○ Following the three pages, the phrase “ October 9, 2016” to be read as “ September 28, 2016” to be read as “ September 28, 2016.”

○ 5 4. A. 1) The following shall be met:

1) Relevant legal principles

In cases where the Act stipulating matters concerning the principal authorization and permission has a provision that a principal authorization and permission under other Acts shall be deemed to have been granted, the determination of whether the provision on charges under the premise that authorization and permission has been granted under other Acts shall be made by comprehensively taking into account the legislative intent of the provision on the basis of imposition of charges, purpose and legislative form, nature of the charges, legislative intent of the Act stipulating matters concerning the principal authorization and permission, purpose and contents of the relevant charges under the Act, whether the imposition on charges on the grounds of the legal fiction of authorization and permission conforms to the principles of fairness

○ Following the six pages, the former Innovation City Act (amended by Act No. 8819 of Dec. 27, 2007) is amended to “former Innovation City Act”.

The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs shall turn the last 6th reduction into “Minister of Construction and Transportation”.

○ [Attachment 1] Of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the “Special Act on the Construction and Support of Innovation Cities Following Relocation of Public Agencies (amended by Act No. 8819, Dec. 27, 2007)” in the 12th “Special Act on the Construction and Support of Innovation Cities Following Relocation of Public Agencies (amended by Act No. 8656, Oct. 17, 2007)” shall be construed as “the former Special Act on the Construction and Support of Innovation Cities Following Relocation of Public Agencies (amended by Act No. 8656, Oct. 17, 2007)” and the “Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act” in the 18th “Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains” shall be added.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is accepted within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and therefore, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Choi Jong-su (Presiding Judge)