logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.11.24 2014두42193
학교용지부담금 부과처분취소
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 2 subparag. 2 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Creation, Development and Supply of School Sites for Public Elementary Schools, Middle Schools and High Schools (amended by Act No. 13006, Jan. 20, 2015; hereinafter “School Site Act”) provides that “Development Projects” means projects implemented under the Building Act, the Urban Development Act, the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the Housing Act, the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, and the Industrial Sites and Development Act (hereinafter “Building Act, etc.”) that create and develop land for housing construction on a scale of at least 10 households, among projects implemented under the Building Act, and subparagraph 3 of Article 2 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Creation, Development and Supply of School Sites for Public Elementary Schools, Middle Schools and High Schools, which provide for special cases concerning the bearing of related expenses.”

In addition, according to Article 22(1) of the former Special Act on the Construction of Multifunctional Administrative City in Yeongi-Gongju Area for Follow-up Measures for New Administrative Capital (amended by Act No. 12754, Jun. 11, 2014; hereinafter “New Administrative Capital Special Act”), when an implementation plan is approved pursuant to Article 21, the construction permit under Article 11 of the Building Act (Article 11); “authorization of an implementation plan under Article 17 of the Urban Development Act” (Article 16); “approval of an implementation plan under Article 16 of the Housing Act” (Article 30).

2. The lower court: (1) The Plaintiff was designated as the implementer of the construction project for a multifunctional administrative city under Article 18 of the Special Act on New Administrative Capital (hereinafter “instant project”); and (2) The Plaintiff’s implementation plan for the instant project from the Administrator of the Construction Agency

arrow