(a) Criteria for determining whether the project undertaker of each development project on the connected land is subject to development charges under the latter part of Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act and the scope of summing-up

(b) Whether the area of the adjoining land already completed prior to the implementation of the Restitution of Development Gains Act is added to the land area subject to the imposition of charges under the latter part of Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

A. According to the latter part of Article 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13660 of Jun. 11, 192), determination of whether each housing site preparation project on adjoining land constitutes the scale of the development project subject to the development charges shall not be based on only one of the project undertakers as to whether the relevant housing site preparation project is identical, but shall be based on whether the relevant housing site preparation project is implemented in actual installments with authorization obtained at a different time in consideration of various circumstances such as the project undertaker, and shall be based on whether the relevant housing site preparation project is identical, and if such case is a case, it shall be based on whether the whole area of the land subject to each housing site preparation project constitutes the subject of the imposition of charges by adding

(b) No decision may be made as to whether the area of adjoining land which has already been completed prior to the implementation of the Restitution of Development Gains Act falls under the project subject to charges under the latter part of Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, including the area on the land adjacent to

Article 5 of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act, Article 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Dongk Construction Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Jong-ok et al., Counsel for defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu36207 delivered on January 12, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff implemented a housing site development project for newly constructing 3,277 square meters of land (1,041 square meters of the plaintiff's share), such as the 4,373 square meters of land (450.3 square meters of the plaintiff's share), jointly with the new bank's 4th workplace housing association, the 5th workplace housing association, and the 6th workplace housing association, etc. (1,041 square meters of the plaintiff's share) on the ground of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (1,041 square meters of the plaintiff's share). The plaintiff's housing site development project was implemented for newly constructing 111 square meters of land (4,50.3 square meters of the plaintiff's share in the land at the time of implementation of the housing site development project at the same time with the 3th workplace housing association and the 4,373 square meters of the above development project's share in the land at the time of implementation of each housing site development project at the same time as the project is not subject of each of development project.

In order to fall under the latter part of Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the court below held that the project operator of each of the above housing site development projects shall be the same project operator. In this case, the project operator of each of the above housing site development project is not the same, and the adjacent land site development project does not fall under the subject of charges from the first completed relation before the law enters into force, and therefore it cannot be determined whether the area of the land in this case is subject to charges by adding the area of the land in this case to the area of the land in this case. In light of the above legal principles and records, it is inappropriate for the court below to state that the application of the latter part of Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Act was made in the same case. However, the part stating that it cannot be determined whether the area of the land in this case is subject to charges under the latter part of Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree by adding the area of the land in this case which had already been completed before the law enters into force to the area of the land in this case is less than 3,300 square meters.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)