Park Dog-young (Attorney Yoon Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Yangju Market

May 16, 2005

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of development charges of KRW 105,864,240 against the Plaintiff on November 27, 2003 in excess of KRW 103,406,103 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Ten percent of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, while the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 15, 2003, the Plaintiff, from the Defendant, started the construction work with the permission of changing the form and quality for the creation of a neighborhood living facility site with respect to the totaling of 3,100 square meters of 267-1, 730 square meters prior to the 267-9, the same 267-10, prior to the same 267-10, prior to the same 267-10, and 820 square meters prior to the same 267-11, prior to the same 267-10, which was owned by the Plaintiff, around July 15, 200.

B. On November 27, 2003, the Defendant imposed and notified development charges of the above site creation project on the Plaintiff, calculated as follows, KRW 116,198,060, but was reduced to KRW 105,864,240, excluding the amount equivalent to 360/4,048 of shares in the building-Nam Development Co., Ltd. according to the result of administrative appeal (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(1) The land price as at the starting point of the table included in the main sentence: ① (Standard land) 125,858,773 40,000 125,864,773 40,000 1,70 374-4 37,030 374 1,70,000 YYYYYYYY 374-4 1,70,030 .35,236,887 . . .. 464,792,217 . .. ... 16,198,060 . . .. 105,864,240 . 105,864,060 . * 3,688/4,048 shares) after the administrative appeal (=25/100)

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 4, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

B. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment on this issue

(1) As to the mistake of the subject of imposition

The plaintiff asserts that some of the instant land shares should be deducted from the calculation of development charges because they are owned by Ynam Development Co., Ltd., but as seen earlier, the instant disposition of this case was deducted from the portion equivalent to 360/4,048 of the ownership shares in Ynam Development Co., Ltd. according to the result of administrative appeal, so the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(2) As to the selection of standard land and the inspection and non-survey of land characteristics

(A) The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case based on the land price of this case is unlawful since the land of this case and the land price formation factors are land not only similar price rights that are far different from 4.2 km from the land of this case at Yangju-dong, 374-4 (hereinafter referred to as "the reference land of this case") at the time of completion of the above site development project. The plaintiff also asserts that the actual shape of the reference land of this case is "regular shape" in the shape of a square, and the actual shape of the reference land of this case is "small square," and is adjacent to the road of not less than 8m and less than 12m, the shape of the reference land of this case was "small square," and the road adjoining area was erroneous in the examination of characteristics as "small square, Sejong-dong, 167-1 land of this case, and the land adjoining the road of this case which is less than 8m wide," and each of the remaining characteristics of the disposition of this case is erroneous.

(B) According to Article 10(1) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 7335, Jan. 14, 2005), the land price as of the end under Article 8 of the same Act shall be calculated by adding the increases in normal land prices from January 1 of the year concerned to the end of imposition, based on the officially announced land price of the reference land most similar to the land to be imposed at the time of completion of imposition, to the value calculated in accordance with the comparison table under Article 10(2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act. According to Article 10(2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, where the Minister of Construction and Transportation deems it necessary to calculate the land price for the purpose of paragraph (1) of the same Article, he shall prepare a standard comparison table on the formation of land price of the reference land to the relevant administrative agency, etc.

(C) According to the above evidence and evidence Nos. 5, Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, Eul evidence Nos. 9, Eul evidence Nos. 12-1 through 5, and the court's on-site inspection results, in full view of the overall purport of arguments as a result of appraisal by appraiser No. 12, two weeks, which are reference land of this case, are located in an agricultural and forest area and used as a site for a commercial building. The land is located within 350 square meters away from the above site and adjoining to the south as of the completion of the above site development project (i.e., the above concrete packaging road at the time of appraisal by commission of this court). The land of this case is divided into new land or new road No. 374-4, which is located within the boundary of each of the above site, and there is no specific land category or new road No. 5 meters adjacent to the above site of this case.

First, according to the facts of recognition as to the selection of the reference land in this case, since the reference land in this case is identical or similar to the land in this case and the land use status, it seems that the reference land in this case is equal or similar to the surface of the road. Accordingly, the plaintiff can take into account whether the reference land price determined by the comparison standard land price cannot be an absolute standard for the selection of reference land, and whether the officially assessed individual land price determined by the comparison standard land price can be balanced with the publicly assessed individual land price in neighboring land. However, in the case where the reference land price in both Priju and Sejong in 2003 is a site, it cannot be found that there is a higher land price than the reference land in this case, and the reference land price, which is a site located in a management area with higher land prices, is located in both Priju, and all the above land presented by the plaintiff is located in a management area, and there is no illegality in the plaintiff's assertion that the land in this case is located in the specific land use area, and there is no difference between the above land and the land use condition in this case.

Furthermore, with respect to the survey and comparison of land characteristics, in the survey and calculation of the road surface of 267-1 to 730 square meters (hereinafter “subsection land”), among the land in this case, the actual width of the local highway No. 347 adjoining to the west of the land at issue is about five meters. However, as seen above, the defendant calculated the road width as the above 8m in the cadastral map and the road width is 8m in the cadastral map, and thus, according to the guidelines in this case, the above local highway abutting on the west of the land at issue falls under the length (A) and the above local highway abutting on the northwest of the land at issue at issue falls under the length (A) and the road adjoining to the northwest of the land at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at the point of time, the remaining part of the land at issue at issue at issue at the point of time is not deemed to fall under the ground of the plaintiff’s allegation that the remaining part of the land at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at the point of 30.

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 액수 계산근거 표준지(양주시 광사동 374-4 토지) 지가(2003. 7. 15. 기준) 235,060원 230,000원(2003. 1. 1. 기준공시지가) + 5,060원[230,000원 × 정상지가상승분 2.20%{2.08%(2003년도 1/4분기 및 2/4분기 정상지가상승분) + 0.12%(2003년도 3/4분기 정상지가상승분× 1/6)}] ‘소로각지’(표준지) 대비 ‘세각(가)’의 배율 0.94 ？ 쟁점토지의 종료시점지가 160,600,000원 ㎡당 220,000원(이 사건 지침 Ⅱ. 3. 산정지가에 따라 상위 4째 자리부터는 버림) × 730㎡ 이 사건 부과처분에 있어서 쟁점토지의 종료시점지가 171,392,320원 ㎡당 230,000원 × 730㎡ × (1+ 정상지가상승율 2.08%) 나머지 토지들을 포함한 정당한 종료시점지가 646,800,710원 당초 종료시점지가 합계 657,593,030원 - 위 차액 10,792,320원 정당한 개발부담금 103,406,103원 453,999,897원(종료시점지가-개시시점지가-정상지가상승분-개발비용) × 25% × 3,688/4,048지분

(3) As to the assertion of error in the calculation of development charges

The plaintiff asserts that since the development charges were calculated on the premise that the price at the time of completion of the development of the land in this case is KRW 644,190,00,000, the development charges was calculated on the premise that it was KRW 657,593,030,030, it was erroneous. In full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the evidence No. 11 of this case, the base price at January 1, 2003 of the land in this case is KRW 644,190,000, and the increase in normal land prices until the completion date shall be added in calculating the end price. The defendant can not be recognized as having calculated the normal land prices at the time of the completion of the development project by June 30, 203 by adding up the normal land prices at KRW 13,403,030 [64,190,000 x 100% x 2.08%), the plaintiff's assertion that the above base price at the end date is 131.

(4) If so, the part which exceeds the above 103,406,103 won among the disposition of this case is illegal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is partially reasonable, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

The former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 7335 of Jan. 14, 2005)

Article 10 (Calculation of Land Prices)

(1) The land value as provided for in Article 8 shall be the value calculated by adding the increases in normal land prices from January 1 of the year concerned to the end of the imposition, on the basis of the officially announced value of reference land the land to be imposed at the time of completion of the imposition and the situation of use of which are the most similar to those of the reference land.

(3) The land value as at the starting point under subparagraph 1 of Article 8 shall be the aggregate of the increases in normal land prices from the base date of the officially assessed individual land price of the land subject to imposition of the year to which the starting point of imposition belongs (referring to the land price most recently announced from the starting point of imposition) to the starting point of imposition: Provided, That in any of the following cases, the land value as at the starting point may be the amount calculated by adding or adding the increases in normal land prices to the starting point of imposition

(5) In computing the land price at the starting point and the starting point under paragraphs (1) and (3), where there exists no officially assessed individual land price of the relevant land, etc., it shall be calculated as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction

Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act

Article 9 (Calculation of Land Prices)

(6) The term "cases prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 10 (5) of the Act means cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Where there is no officially assessed individual land price of the land subject to imposition, in computing the land price as of the starting point and termination point;

2. In computing the land price at the time of completion, where the land price at the time of commencement is calculated as the purchase price pursuant to the proviso of Article 10 (3) of the Act

Enforcement Regulations of the Restitution of Development Gains Act

Article 4-3 (Method of Land Price Calculation)

(2) Where the head of Si/Gun/Gu intends to calculate the land prices at the time of completion and at the time of commencement pursuant to Article 10 (5) of the Act, he shall calculate it by the arithmetic mean of values appraised by not less than two appraisal corporations under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act

Public Notice of Values and Appraisal

Article 10 (Application of Officially Assessed Land Price)

(2) The Minister of Construction and Transportation shall, where deemed necessary for the calculation of land prices for the purposes of paragraph (1), prepare a standard comparison table of the standard land price and the land price to be calculated by the land price (hereinafter referred to as “land price ratio table”) and provide it to the related administrative agencies, etc., and the related administrative agencies, etc. shall calculate the land price by using it.

Standard land selection criteria (part) based on the guidelines for investigation and calculation of the officially assessed individual land price in 2003.

II Land Characteristics Survey

3. Guidelines for surveying by land characteristics and by items;

Road Conditions: On the surface of a road;

Category of roads to prevent Category

0. Roads shall be based on the current roads, but where a final land number is granted as land within a housing site development project zone, a sectional zone rearrangement project zone and other large-scale development project zone, a survey shall be conducted based on the roads indicated

Ⅲ Selection of Compared Standard Site

3. Criteria for selecting comparative standards;

(a) Where the land subject to investigation is general land;

(1) The comparative standard place shall select the standard place of reference land, the land to be surveyed and the situation of land utilization of which are the same or similar to the ground land to be surveyed, from among the reference land of similar price

(2) Where there are two or more reference land in the same special-purpose area with the same status of land use, one of the reference land of the same kind within the main purpose shall be selected.

(3) Where there are no reference land in the same special-purpose area for the same land use, the reference land in similar price sphere shall be selected in consideration of the neighboring land use situation of land to be inspected even if the main purpose is different.

Judges Han-ho (Presiding Judge)