(a) Whether Article 2 (2) of the Addenda of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act ( March 2, 1990) violates Article 2 of the Addenda of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act ( December 30, 1989) by a parent corporation;

(b) The meaning of the “value by publicly notified land prices” as provided in Article 10(3) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act by the criteria for computing land prices at the time of commencement of the development project;

(c) Where a development project is implemented over the period before or after the enforcement date, whether the development costs to be deducted from the land at the completion date are limited to expenses incurred after the enforcement date;

A. The provisions of Article 2 (2) of the Addenda of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13465 of Sep. 13, 191) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13465 of Mar. 2, 1990) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993) shall be deemed to be the starting date of the relevant development project, and any project, the implementation date of which has not been completed at the time of the enforcement date of the same Act, shall be deemed to be the starting date of the relevant development project and null and void as it violates the provisions of Article 2 of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993) (amended by Act No. 4563 of Dec. 30, 1989).

B. Under Article 10 (3) and (1) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993), where the State or a local government has established guidelines for the joint investigation of individual land prices under Article 10 (3) and (1) of the same Act, and the head of a Si/Gun/Gu has determined individual land prices for the purpose of uniform use by applying the comparison table under Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act on the basis of the officially announced land values for administrative purposes, and the head of a Si/Gun/Gu has determined individual land prices after deliberation of the local land appraisal committee and confirmation by the Minister of Construction and Transportation. In light of the purport of such individual land price system, where the administrative agency is to calculate the land prices by applying the comparison table under Article 10 of the same Act on the basis of the officially announced land prices of the reference land for administrative purposes, the individual land prices shall be determined based on the individual land prices, unless there are special circumstances, such as where the actual land prices at the time of individual land prices are significantly changed.

C. Article 2 of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4563 of Dec. 30, 1989) is deemed to be the starting point of development projects, which is the enforcement date of the same Act, and the purpose is to calculate development charges by considering the situation prior to the enforcement date of the same Act and only the following conditions. Thus, even if the development charges were commenced before the enforcement date of the same Act, it shall not be deemed that the implementation of the development project has commenced until the enforcement date of the same Act, which is deemed to be the starting point of development projects pursuant to Article 2 of the same Act. Therefore, the expenses incurred in relation to the implementation of the development project in question under Article 11 (1) of the same Act and Article 10 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13956 of Aug. 12, 193) shall be deemed to be only the expenses spent after the enforcement date of the same Act.

(a)Article 2 of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act; Article 2 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 10(1) and Article 10(3) of the same Act; Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act; Article 11(1) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act; Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 93Nu6324 delivered on April 12, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1344 delivered on March 22, 1994). (b) Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1879 delivered on April 12, 1994 (Dong Branch) 93Nu12305 delivered on April 12, 1994

Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other

Chuncheon Market

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu2600 delivered on February 23, 1993

Each appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

1. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

A. Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree") provides that the land price at the time of the commencement of a development project to be governed by this Act under Article 2 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act shall be the amount calculated by subtracting the increase in normal land prices from the value at the time of the commencement of the development project by the officially announced land price as of September 13, 1991. The land price at the time of authorization, etc. for the development project to calculate the above charges under Presidential Decree No. 13465 on September 13, 1991 shall be the amount calculated by subtracting the increase in normal land prices from the land price at March 2, 1990, which was approved as of March 2, 190 as of the time of the commencement of the development project, so that the said Addenda provisions shall be seen as the time of commencement of the development project, and the implementation of the project has not been completed at the time of commencement of the development project, and shall be deemed null and void by Article 3-23 of the Act.

B. Article 10(3) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993) provides that the value of the land subject to the imposition of the time of the commencement of the development project shall be the amount calculated by adding the increases in normal land prices from the base date of the officially announced land price to the date of the commencement of the development project, to the amount calculated by adding the increases in normal land prices from the base date of the officially announced land price to the date of the commencement of the development project, and Article 10(1) of the same Act provides that “the value calculated by the publicly announced land price” shall be deemed as “the

However, under the Prime Minister’s Directive No. 241 of Apr. 11, 1990 (wholly amended by the Prime Minister’s Directive No. 248 of Apr. 2, 1991), where the State or a local government has to calculate the price of individual land by applying the comparison table under Article 10 of the Land Price Disclosure Act on the basis of the officially announced land price for administrative purposes, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu has publicly announced the price of individual land for the purpose of uniform use after deliberation by the Local Land Appraisal Committee every year and confirmation by the Minister of Construction and Transportation. In light of the purport of such individual land price system, in cases where an administrative agency is required to calculate the price of individual land by applying the comparison table under Article 10 of the Land Price Disclosure Act on the basis of the officially announced land price of the standard land for administrative purposes, the price of individual land shall be determined based on the price of individual land, unless there are special circumstances such as where the administrative agency erred in the determination of the price of individual land, or where the current status at the time of the individual land price was significantly changed.

In the same purport, the court below is justified in holding that the defendant applied Article 2 (2) of the Addenda to the above Enforcement Decree to the effect that the defendant applied the "value based on the officially announced land price" as stipulated in Article 10 (3) of the Act to the price calculated by applying the standard land price ratification table as stipulated by the Minister of Construction and Transportation to the officially announced land price of the standard land, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

Article 11 (1) of the Act and Article 10 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provide that with respect to development costs, which are one of the items to be deducted from the land price at the time of completion of the development charges, it refers to the cost of net construction, etc. paid in connection

However, as seen earlier, Article 2 of the Addenda of the Act is deemed to be the commencement date of the development project on January 1, 1990, the legal enforcement date of which is deemed to be the commencement date of the development project. This is to consider the situation prior to the enforcement date of the development project and to calculate the development charges by considering only the situation thereafter. Thus, as long as Article 2 (2) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree provides that the development charges shall be calculated by treating the commencement date of the development project as the commencement date of the development project, the actual commencement date of the development project shall be deemed null and void, even if the project starts before the enforcement date of the Act, it shall not be deemed that the development project started until the legal enforcement date is deemed to be the commencement date of the development project as the commencement date of the development project pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda of the Act. Therefore, in this case, the expenses spent in relation to the implementation of the development project concerned as stipulated in the above provision of the Act

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the total expenses incurred in the development project of this case are 97,253,164, and that the private house construction project of this case was implemented on October 25, 198 and deemed as the time of commencement of the development project of this case on January 1, 1990, and that the site-building construction and apartment-building construction and apartment-building construction are completed in whole and the apartment building construction and apartment-building construction, electricity construction and hygiene construction were left only within the apartment house. According to the above facts, the court below determined that there was no direct expense for the development of the land of this case subject to the imposition of development charges after January 1, 1990 among the total expenses. Thus, in light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and judgment is justified, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to development costs in accordance with the above legal principles or in the incomplete deliberation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

3. Therefore, each appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)