In calculating the significant profits as stipulated in Article 66 of the Road Act and Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Ordinance on Collection of Charges for Beneficiaries of Busan Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities, the value of natural increase in land to be the basis for the calculation of the same Ordinance

The purpose of Article 66 of the Road Act and Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Ordinance on the Collection of Charges for Beneficiaries of Busan Metropolitan City, which was enacted pursuant to the delegation thereof is that, if the value of the land concerned has risen solely due to road works, it shall be deemed that there exists "low profits" if the risen value exceeds twice the natural risen value, and its beneficiary shall bear all or part of the expenses necessary for the construction work within the scope of the profits. Thus, even though Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the above Ordinance provides that "natural risen value of the land" means "natural risen value of wholesale," it shall be calculated as the basis of the increase in wholesale value if it is impossible to identify the natural risen value of the land concerned. Accordingly, if the risen value of the land has been found due to road works, it shall be calculated as "low profits."

Article 66 of the Road Act, Article 2 subparagraph 3 and subparagraph 4 of Article 2 of the Ordinance on the Collection of Charges for Beneficiaries of Busan Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities.

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of Busan Metropolitan City

Daegu High Court Decision 86Gu263 delivered on June 17, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The purpose of Article 66 of the Road Act and Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Ordinance on the Collection of Charges for Beneficiaries of Busan Metropolitan City, Metropolitan Cities, and Metropolitan Cities, which was enacted pursuant to delegation of the above provisions, is to say that when the value of the land concerned has risen solely due to road works, it shall be deemed that there exists "low profits" if the risen (the risen value of the land is deducted from the risen value of the construction before and after the construction work) exceeds twice the natural rising value, and its beneficiary shall bear all or part of the expenses necessary for the construction work within the scope of the profits. Thus, even if Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the above Ordinance provides that "natural increase in the value of the land" means "natural increase in the value of wholesale," it shall be deemed to be the basis of the increase in the value of wholesale in the case where the natural increase in the value of the land concerned is not known. Accordingly, if the natural increase in the value of the land concerned has been discovered due to road works, it shall be calculated "low

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendant calculated the "low interest" on the basis of the increase in wholesale prices, even though the natural increase in the land of this case was revealed, and that the calculation of the charges of this case is unlawful. There is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged.

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.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)