1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition as follows. Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Additional Determination

A. Article 5(1)1 and (2) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 7709 of Dec. 7, 2005), Article 4(1) [Attachment 1] [Attachment 1] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19752 of Dec. 15, 2006) provides that "site development project and housing construction project" shall be construed as "housing site development project and housing construction project" among the projects subject to the imposition of development charges under subparagraph 1 of [Attachment 1] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act, and only housing construction

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Du3968 Decided December 24, 2009, etc.). However, on December 15, 2006, the above Enforcement Decree was amended by Presidential Decree No. 19752 on December 15, 2006, and the business subject to development charges is expanded into “site development project or housing construction project”, and thereby, excluded a housing construction project implemented on the land which was completed by the implementation of the development project subject to development charges to prevent double imposition of development charges.

In light of such amendment history, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the instant housing construction project does not constitute a development project subject to development charges is difficult to accept, even in cases where land price changes occur due to housing construction projects under the Housing Act.

On the other hand, in rendering the instant disposition, the Defendant recognized KRW 1,651,967,466 paid by the Plaintiff as development costs, and among them, included soil construction costs.