beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On July 7, 2008, the Plaintiff obtained a construction permit from the head of Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government free economic zone authority to construct a Class 1 neighborhood living facility (retailing to “Cdong” when indicating a lot number of land; hereinafter “instant land”) with a total floor area of 264 square meters in the Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Jung-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, and completed the construction work accordingly, and obtained approval for use on March 12, 2010.
(hereinafter referred to as the “development project in this case”). Division: (1) Calculation details: (1) The land price as at the time of termination is KRW 950,357,561: March 12, 2010; (2) the land price as at the time of commencement of the deduction amount is KRW 306,589,68: the starting point: July 7, 2008; (31,898,474 won; (3) the development cost of KRW 467,206,780; (4), development charges of KRW 116,801,690; and (2) x 25% (t).
B. When the land category of the instant land was changed from an amusement park on March 16, 2010 to a site, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant development project was subject to development charges as “development project involving land category change” under Article 5(1)9 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (hereinafter “Development Gains Restitution Act”); and (b) rendered the instant disposition imposing development charges of KRW 116,801,690 on the Plaintiff on April 20, 201, as the following calculation details.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant calculated the land price at the time of termination on the premise that the price at which the instant land is located was designated as a free economic zone. However, since the instant land was cancelled in a free economic zone around April 201, the land should be re-calculated on the premise that it was not designated as a free economic zone. 2) The Plaintiff’s land price at the time of termination on the instant land should be re-calculated in collaboration with the owner E of the instant land in order to establish access roads