Modong Agricultural Cooperative (Attorney Kang-hee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

the head of Si/Gun

June 16, 2004

1. The disposition of imposition of development charges of KRW 23,105,000, imposed on the Plaintiff on January 13, 2004 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 9, 2002, the Plaintiff completed a report on the diversion of farmland storage facilities and building sites on the Cheongan-ri, Cheongan-ri, 399 and 6,681 square meters of land located in Gyeonggi-gun, Dong-dong, Gyeonggi-do, for the purpose of building sites for agricultural storage facilities and building sites, and newly constructed a steel-frame structure warehouse on the ground, and obtained approval for the use of the building on October 1, 2003.

B. On January 13, 2004, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition imposing development charges of KRW 23,105,000 to the Plaintiff on the basis of Article 3 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act by deeming the said site development project as the development project subject to the imposition of development charges.

[Certificate] Evidence No. 1-1, 2, 3, 3-1, 3-1, 1-2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Relevant statutes;

Agricultural Cooperatives Act

Article 8 (Exemption from Dues)

A union and a local government's business and property shall be exempted from taxes other than those of the State and local governments.

Restitution of Development Gains Act

Article 7 (Imposition Exception and Reduction or Exemption)

(2) The development charges on a development project falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be reduced by 50/100. In such cases, the following provisions shall not apply in duplicate:

2. Projects implemented by government-invested institutions under the Framework Act on the Management of Government-Invested Institutions, local public enterprises under the Local Public Enterprises Act and public enterprises under special Acts and prescribed by Presidential Decree

Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act

Article 5 (Imposition Exception and Reduction or Exemption)

(2) Public institutions whose 50/100 of charges is reduced pursuant to Article 7 (2) 2 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as "institutions subject to reduction or exemption") shall be institutions falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

3. The following public enterprises and associations from among the public enterprises and associations under special Acts:

(d) Agricultural cooperatives and the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation established under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act;

B. Determination

Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act provides that "the business and property of a cooperative and the Federation shall be exempted from surcharges other than those of the State and local governments." Article 7 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4563, Jun. 11, 1993) and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13956, Aug. 12, 1993) provide that the whole or part of development charges shall be reduced for specific entities, such as the State, local governments, and agricultural cooperatives, etc., and each of the above provisions has the character of a special law on the general law on the imposition of development charges, and is inconsistent and inconsistent with each other.

However, since the Agricultural Cooperatives Act repealed the previous Agricultural Cooperatives Act, and newly enacted by Act No. 6018 on September 7, 199 and enforced on July 1, 200 (Article 1 and Article 2 of the Addenda of the same Act), the provisions of Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act preferentially apply to those of the Restitution of Development Gains Act and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act in accordance with the new law priority principle (it does not change with the fact that the previous provisions of the same purport of the repealed Agricultural Cooperatives Act were established). The legislators do not change with the fact that the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act was repealed and newly enacted the Agricultural Cooperatives Act to the same purport, thereby exempting the agricultural cooperatives from imposing dues on their business, so the Plaintiff’s above site cannot be subject to the imposition of development charges. Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Young-gu (Presiding Judge)