(a) Criteria for determining the scale of development gains which are the basis for imposing development charges;

(b) The case holding that, in case where a housing construction project is implemented jointly with another cooperative in its form, but in fact, where the project is carried out independently from such other cooperative, the size of the project subject to development charges should be determined only by the area of the land subject to the imposition

(a) The development charges should be imposed on the person to whom the development gains actually accrue, and the scale of the development gains which form the basis for imposing the development charges should be determined based on the scale of the development gains actually reverted to the project implementer;

(b) The case holding that, in case where a housing construction project is implemented jointly with another cooperative in form, but in fact, where the project is carried out independently from such other cooperative, the size of the project subject to development charges should be determined only by the area of the land subject to the imposition thereof;

A. Article 2 subparag. 1(b) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act. Article 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4434, Dec. 14, 1991) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13465, Sep. 13, 1991)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Attorney Shin Jae-han, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Attorney Shin-ro, Counsel for the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu14825 delivered on February 2, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below presumed that development charges should be imposed on the person to whom the development gains actually accrue, and that the size of development gains should be determined based on the development gains actually reverted to the project implementer. The plaintiff, who obtained authorization on May 17, 1989, submitted to the defendant a housing construction project plan for the aggregate of six parcels, including Seocho-gu ( Address 1 omitted), 2,834 square meters for the construction of housing units to the defendant on April 6 of the same year; the construction deliberation on September 8 of the same year; the construction deliberation on the same year was completed on October 30 of the same year; and the project plan for the housing construction project was completed by the plaintiff 1, 26, adjacent to the plaintiff's scheduled area for housing construction (the plaintiff 1,256 square meters of the aggregate of the land for the housing construction project to be purchased by the non-party 4 and the housing construction project association's association's new construction project plan for the housing construction project shall be divided into the plaintiff 1,26, and the association's existing housing construction project association's new construction project plan.

In light of the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the records, we affirm the fact finding and judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the scale of business subject to development charges due to incomplete deliberation, etc.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)