(a) The case holding that where the head of the Gu imposes development charges on the workplace housing association, but the housing association dissolves, designating the members as the secondary obligor of the development charges and impose the development charges, the excess disposition on the members of the association is an independent administrative disposition that is separate from the excess disposition on the association;

(b) Whether the excess of the development charges imposed upon members for the reason of dissolution of the housing association as the second taxpayer is valid;

B. The development charges imposed on a project implementer under the Restitution of Development Gains Act are not national taxes or defense taxes, and the provisions on secondary tax liability under the Framework Act on National Taxes or the Local Tax Act cannot be applied mutatis mutandis unless otherwise provided in the same Act, and there is no legal basis to deem that a housing association, which is a non-corporate group, is dissolved and its rights and duties naturally succeeded to members. Therefore, the excess of the development charges imposed on a housing association member on the ground of dissolution of the housing association, shall be null and void

(a) Article 6 and Article 14 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act, Article 44 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act;

Kim Ho-ho et al. and 962

The head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

The disposition of imposition of each development charges listed in the attached Table (B) imposed by the defendant against the plaintiffs on May 25, 1991 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the imposition;

In full view of the overall purport of arguments as stated in Gap evidence 2 through 7 and Eul evidence 1-1-3, the non-party group 3 workplace housing association (hereinafter only referred to as the "non-party association") is an organization which is not a juristic person under the positive law and has been organized by the plaintiffs who agreed to establish an association among the executives and employees working for modern construction and modern affiliate, and applied to join the association. It shall be deemed that the association rules establish an objective business and carries out the construction of collective housing and the projects for raising and operating the funds therefor. The association shall have a general meeting and an executive board, a representative of the decision-making body, an association shall be established according to the principle of majority, and the organization shall continue to exist regardless of the change due to membership or withdrawal. The plaintiffs' methods, the operation of an organization, the composition of capital, the management of property, and other important matters of the housing construction project under the above Article 9-14 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, and the defendant shall purchase the housing construction project under the same Article 9-2 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act for the same year after obtaining approval of the above association from the defendant on August 24, 198.

2. Whether the imposition is appropriate; and

A. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

The defendant, upon the dissolution of the non-party partnership, succeeded to the rights and obligations of the above association to the plaintiffs who are its members, also belongs to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the defendant's act of having the plaintiffs pay the development charges on May 25, 191 is nothing more than confirming the plaintiffs' obligation to pay the development charges and notifying them by specifying the amount of the development charges to be borne by each of the plaintiffs and the time limit for payment, and it cannot be viewed as an independent administrative act that is the object of administrative litigation, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case seeking its revocation is unlawful.

However, in light of the above facts and the relevant provisions of Article 44 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, although the non-party partnership uses the name of the partnership, its substance is a non-corporate body, so the above obligation to pay development charges is not attributed to the plaintiffs, who are its members, and it does not belong to the plaintiffs. There is no legal basis to regard that the above partnership is dissolved and its rights and obligations are naturally succeeded to the plaintiffs, who are its members, and thus, the obligation to pay development charges is attributed to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the disposition of this case taken by the defendant against the plaintiffs on May 25, 191 should be regarded as an independent disposition separate from the disposition of imposition against the above partnership. Thus, the defendant's main defense is without merit.

B. Judgment on the merits

The plaintiffs asserted that the disposition of this case, which the defendant designated the plaintiffs as the second taxpayer by the above non-party association, is unlawful since there is no legal basis.

However, the development charges imposed on a project implementer under Articles 3, 6, and 14 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act are not national taxes or local taxes prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the provisions on secondary tax liability under the Framework Act on National Taxes or the Local Tax Act shall not apply mutatis mutandis unless otherwise provided for in the Restitution of Development Gains Act. Thus, the disposition of this case by the defendant designating the plaintiffs who are the members of the non-party association as the second taxpayer of the non-party association on the ground of dissolution of the non-party association, which is the implementer of the non-corporate housing construction project, does not have any legal basis, and there is no legal basis to deem that the rights and obligations of the non-corporate association are naturally succeeded to the plaintiffs who are the members of the non-corporate association due to the dissolution of the non-corporate association. Therefore, the disposition of this case is significant and apparent

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiffs' claims seeking revocation in the sense of seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of this case are justified, and this is accepted.

Judges Jinsung (Presiding Judge)