(a) Legal nature of the imposition period of the development charges under Article 14 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act;

(b) The legal nature of Article 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act and the final time to prove the purchase price;

A. In light of the provisions of Article 14 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993), or the provisions of Articles 15 and 18 through 21 of the same Act, which provide for the imposition and collection procedures of development charges and the provisions of Article 1 of the same Act, which provide for the imposition and collection procedures of development charges, to prevent speculation on land and promote the efficient utilization of land, and contribute to the sound development of the national economy, it is reasonable to view that Article 14 of the same Act is not a provision on the exclusion period in which the development charges cannot be imposed in entirety after the lapse of three months from the completion date of development to the administrative agency, and it is reasonable to consider that Article 14 of the same Act is a provision on the warning order that the development charges shall be imposed promptly within a period of not more than three

B. Article 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 495 of Nov. 29, 1991) is a procedural provision prepared to promote administrative convenience for prompt and accurate imposition and collection of development charges, which has the nature of a simple administrative rule. Therefore, even if a development project operator reported purchase price after the expiration of the reporting period stipulated in the Enforcement Rule, it cannot be calculated by applying the purchase price at the time of the development project commencement of the land subject to the development charges, not by applying the purchase price at the time of the development project, and the purchase price verification can be conducted

(a) Article 14 of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act; Article 10(3) of the same Act; Article 9(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; and Article 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 93Nu21071 delivered on April 15, 1994 (Gong1994Sang), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13677 delivered on May 11, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1726) 93Nu7518 delivered on August 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2651 delivered on October 8, 1993)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and one other, Counsel for defendant-appellant

The head of Incheon North Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu11393 delivered on May 12, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Article 14 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall impose the development charges within three months from the time of completion of the development project. In light of the provisions of Article 14 of the Act, or the provisions of Articles 15 and 18 through 21 of the Act, which provide for the procedures for imposition and collection of the development charges, to prevent speculation on the land and promote the efficient utilization of the land, and to contribute to the sound development of the national economy by properly distributing the development gains in light of the form prescribed in Article 14 of the Act, and the provisions of Articles 15 and 18 through 21 of the Act, which provide for the procedures for imposition and collection of the development charges, it shall not be deemed that Article 14 of the Act provides that the development charges shall not be imposed in whole after the lapse of three months from the time of completion of the development project, but it shall

Therefore, even if the imposing authority of the development charges imposes the development charges after the expiration of the period stipulated in Article 14 of the Act, it cannot seek the cancellation of the disposition on the ground of this, and therefore, it is not necessary to further examine the remaining grounds of appeal on this point.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Article 10 (3) of the Act provides that the value of land subject to imposition at the time of the commencement of a development project shall be the aggregate of the increases in normal market prices from the date of the official announcement of land price to the date of the commencement of the development project: Provided, That if a project operator vindicates the purchase price of land subject to imposition, the purchase price may be the aggregate of the increases in normal market prices from the date of purchase to the date of the commencement of the development project. Article 9 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Decree") provides that the purchase price shall be explained under the proviso of Article 10 (3) of the Act in any of the following cases, and the project operator reports the market price under the conditions as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 462 of Nov. 29, 191; hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") provides that a person who intends to report the market price under Article 9 (6) of the Act shall be submitted within 15 days after the date of the final decision.

However, according to the records, the plaintiff asserted that the purchase price at the time when a land transaction report was filed under the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is the purchase price at the time of the instant land and submitted as evidence. Thus, the court below should have considered whether it constitutes the purchase price as stipulated in each relevant Act and subordinate statutes. However, the court below held that the purchase price at the time of the instant development commencement cannot be the basis for calculating the purchase price on the ground that the plaintiff did not report the purchase price to the defendant under Article 4 of the Rules without reaching the above determination. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to Article 4 of the above Enforcement Rule, or failing to complete all necessary deliberation, or failing to fully satisfy the reasons therefor, thereby affecting the conclusion

In the end, the appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)