[Defendant-Appellee] The Korea Development Bank of Korea (Attorney Cho Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Goyang-si Market

March 28, 2012

District Court Decision 2011Guhap2168 Decided October 11, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of KRW 117,623,850 against the plaintiff on December 5, 2010.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

As to the instant case, “1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is lawful” on the grounds that the Court has used the same as the corresponding part of the first instance judgment (from the second to the third to the tenth (from the third to the tenth), except as follows. The part on the Plaintiff’s assertion is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ From the second fourth to the eighthth is as follows:

A. On July 8, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to change the form and quality of aggregate 1, 393 square meters among land (hereinafter “instant permission site”) on the land for miscellaneous land (number 1, 2 omitted) in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul, the development-restricted area of which is a development-restricted area, for the purpose of developing temporary facilities for construction works as a second freedom. On July 8, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission to change the form and quality of aggregate 1, 393 square meters among land (hereinafter “instant permission site”) on the land for miscellaneous land (number 1, 2 omitted).

○ The second 9th " September 6, 2008" is regarded as " August 6, 2008".

○ From the second nineth day of this case, “the permission for an act” shall be deemed to be “the permission for an act”.

○○ The second 17th " December 5, 2010" shall be earlier than December 3, 2010;

○ 3. The phrase “A evidence” shall be added to the column for first reduction (based on recognition).

Until the third fifth half of the “Plaintiff”, “the installation of a aggregate sorting machine subject to permission is merely the removal of aggregate crushing machine on the ground without changing the form and quality of the land, such as cutting, suspending, or packing of the instant permitted site. Therefore, the instant permission is not accompanied by the permission to change the form and quality of the instant permitted site or the alteration of the form and quality thereof.”

○ 3rd seventh, the term “not only is” shall be read as “(first argument).”

The "temporary facilities for construction works of this case" in the 9th place shall be deemed to be "alley scrap string".

○ The third 10th " must be" should be read as "(the second claim)."

2. A new part.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to Plaintiff 1’s assertion

According to Article 21(1) of the Development Restriction Zones Act, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs shall impose and collect charges on and from persons who have obtained permission to change the form and quality of land or permission to change the form and quality of land following permission under the proviso to Article 12(1) of the same Act to control damage to development restriction zones and secure financial resources to manage development restriction zones. Article 22 of the same Act provides that the Mayor, etc. shall immediately notify the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs of the details of permission pursuant to the proviso to Article 12(1) of the same Act. According to Article 25 of the same Act, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs shall impose charges without delay upon the notification of the above permission (Article 1) and the deadline for payment of charges shall be one month from the date on which charges are imposed (Article 25(2)). According to the above Act and subordinate statutes

The Plaintiff obtained permission from the Defendant by filing an application with the Defendant for permission to change the form and quality of a temporary facility for construction work and a site for the instant permission in order to establish a sprink, which is a temporary installation for construction work, one wheel, and one wheel, and an access road. Even if the Plaintiff installed only aggregate screen scrapers without performing construction work on the land, the instant permission is permitted to install aggregate screen scrapers, etc. in the permitted site and make it possible for the Plaintiff to enter the permitted site, and the Plaintiff was able to change the form and quality of the land, such as cutting, suspending, and packaging, etc. of the permitted site in accordance with this permission. The Plaintiff constitutes a person who has obtained permission to change the form and quality of the land or permission to change the form and quality of the land among the permits under the proviso to

2) As to Plaintiff 2’s assertion

According to Article 24(1) of the Development-Restricted Zone Act and Article 36 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21139, Nov. 28, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply), charges shall be calculated based on the area of land subject to permission, but the area of land subject to permission shall be calculated on the basis of the area subject to permission, the area subject to permission shall be changed to the form and quality of land. Provided, That according to Article 25(7) of the same Act, where permission is revoked or the area subject to permission is reduced due to a change in the project plan

According to the aforementioned statutes, if permission to change the form and quality of land or permission to change the form and quality of land is granted pursuant to the proviso to Article 12(1) of the Development Restriction Zone Act, the charges shall be calculated, imposed, and collected based on the area that can change the form and quality of land or the entire area of land subject to permission that involves change in the form and quality of land regardless of whether land is actually changed in the form and quality of the land on the land subject to permission. However, if permission is revoked or the area subject to permission is reduced due to the change in the business plan or other similar reasons within a certain scope, the charges already paid shall be refunded, but the charges shall not be calculated based only on the area where the actual form and quality of the land is changed or the area where the aggregate crushing is installed. The Plaintiff obtained permission only 2,393 square meters of land out of 9,95

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Judges Kim Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)

1) Although the Development Restriction Zone Act was wholly amended on March 21, 2008 and enforced on the same day, the Enforcement Decree under the said Act was wholly amended on November 28, 2008 and enforced on the same day, and at the time of the instant disposition, the Enforcement Decree of the Development Restriction Zone Act, which was wholly amended as above, applies.