[1] The requirements and criteria for determining the validity of an administrative disposition

[2] Purport of the development charges system and method of calculating the development gains

[3] The case affirming the judgment below which held that where the actual purchase price has been verified, the imposition of development charges calculated on the basis of the officially announced price, not the purchase price, shall be null and void

[1] In order for an administrative disposition to be deemed null and void as a matter of course, it is insufficient to say that there is an illegality in the disposition. The defect is a serious violation of the important part of the law, and it is obvious in objective form. The purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law should be examined as a purposeological and reasonable consideration of the specificity of the specific case itself.

[2] The development charges system is a system to realize economic justice and prevent speculation in land and promote the efficient utilization of land by partially recovering development gains exceeding the normal land price increase due to the increase in land price of the land subject to development as a result of the implementation of the development project by the project executor. Therefore, in calculating the development gains, which form the premise for calculating the development charges to be imposed and collected by the development project executor, an equitable calculation should be made so as to be made to the extent close to the actualest.

[3] Where an operator of a development project who purchased land directly from a person who is entitled to impose development charges vindicates the purchase price, the person entitled to impose development charges shall calculate the land price at the time of commencement of the development project of the land in accordance with the latter part of Article 10 (3) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4434 of Dec. 14, 191), but if the development charges were imposed on the basis of the officially announced land price, not the purchase price, if the imposition of development charges was made on the basis of the actual purchase price, it is illegal in calculating the land price at the time of commencement of the development project, and in light of the legislative purpose and purpose of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act, function, and all the circumstances at the time of the imposition, the illegal defect at the time of commencement of the development project on the land subject to imposition falls under the category of gross defect, and thus, it is objectively obvious that the imposition of

[1] Articles 1 [general administrative disposition] and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 2 and 3 of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4434 of Dec. 14, 191) / [3] Article 10 (3) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4434 of Dec. 14, 1991), Article 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 495 of Nov. 29, 191), Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu419 delivered on July 23, 1985 (Gong1985, 1193), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1432 delivered on December 7, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 369), Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu4615 delivered on August 1, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 263) / [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 92Nu13677 delivered on May 11, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1726), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu7518 delivered on August 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2651), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu29394 delivered on June 14, 1994 (Gong26519).

Western Construction Co., Ltd. (formerly: Dojin Construction) (Attorney Yang-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Si interest-si (Attorney Kim In-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na20220 delivered on December 28, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The issue of illegality of administrative disposition should be determined at the time of the disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5153, Sept. 10, 1991, etc.). In order for an administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it is insufficient to say that there is an illegality in the disposition. The defect is a serious violation of the important part of the laws and regulations, and is obvious in objective (non-permanent form). In determining the importance of defect, it is necessary to consider the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations from a teleological perspective and to reasonably consider the specificity of the specific case itself (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1432, Dec. 7, 1993). Meanwhile, the development charge system should be determined to realize the economic justice and to promote the efficient use of the land by partially recovering the land where the land price of the land to be developed has increased as a result of the implementation of the development project, and thus, it should be determined to be 97Nu1984, etc. 97.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the facts as stated in the judgment regarding the imposition of the development charges of this case are legally established based on macro evidence, Article 4 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 495 of Nov. 29, 191) is a procedural provision prepared to promote the administrative convenience for prompt and accurate imposition and collection of the development charges, which has the nature of simple administrative rules. Thus, even if the developer of the development project provides an explanation of purchase price after the period of report stipulated in the Enforcement Rule of the above Act elapses, the land price at the time of commencement of the development project of this case cannot be calculated by applying the actual purchase price. Meanwhile, in this case, the plaintiff did not only purchase the land of this case directly from the Silung market, which is the person entitled to the imposition of the development charges of this case, but also purchase the land of this case at the time of imposition of the development charges of this case, but also purchase the land of this case at the time of imposition of the development charges of this case at least 14 percent of the development charges.

The above determination by the court below is just in light of the above legal principles, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the invalidation of an administrative disposition, such as the theory of lawsuit.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)