A. Whether Articles 19, 23, 24, 28(3), and 32 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site are unconstitutional

(b) The case that it is deemed that the requisite entries in the notice for payment of excess ownership charges are supplemented by the notice for scheduled imposition of charges;

(c) Whether the duty to comply with a plan for use is required for existing housing sites permitted to be owned under the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites;

A. In full view of the legislative purpose and relevant provisions of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, Article 19 of the same Act that provides for the imposition of charges for housing sites exceeding the upper limit of the ownership of each household, Article 23 of the same Act that provides for the imposition of charges on the basis of the officially announced value under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 24 of the same Act on the imposition rate, Article 28(3) of the same Act on the payment of charges in kind, Article 32 of the same Act on the attribution of collected charges shall not be deemed null and void as they violate Article 23 of the Constitution on the Guarantee of Property Rights, Article 13(2) of the Act on the Prohibition of Retroactive Legislation, Article 11(1) of the Constitution on

B. The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the defect in the requisite entry in the notice of payment due to the existence of the disposition of imposition is supplemented by the notice of the scheduled amount of the charge, if there is a description as to the land subject to imposition, such as the location, area, excess ownership period, and imposition rate of the charge in the notice of notice prior to the imposition of excess ownership charges, and there is a description as to whether the land subject to imposition is notified by omitting the part of the charge for a few years.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the provisions of Article 2(2) of the Addenda to the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites and Articles 2 and 3 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a housing site and a housing site owned by a corporation which exceed the upper limit of a household at the time of the enforcement of the Act shall be deemed to have obtained permission, etc. for the acquisition of a housing site under Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the same Act, and the owner of a housing site who is permitted to own shall submit a use plan under Articles 10 through 15 of the same Act within three months from the date of enforcement of the Act,

(a) Articles 19, 23, 24, 28(3), and 32 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites; Articles 11(1), 13(2), and 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 27(2) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites; Article 32(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites; Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites; Article 15 of the Addenda to the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites; Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites; Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites; Article 3 of the Addenda to the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites;

A. Supreme Court Decision 93Nu12916 delivered on October 12, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3104), 93Nu22968 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1351), 94Nu14216 delivered on February 14, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1355), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13981 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2317), 93Nu19542 delivered on March 25, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1353).

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu19619 delivered on December 29, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

In full view of the legislative purpose and relevant provisions of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), it cannot be said that the provisions of Article 19 of the Act, which provides for the imposition of charges for housing sites exceeding the upper limit of possession by household, Article 23 of the Act, which provides for the imposition of charges on the basis of the officially announced value under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 24 of the Act on the imposition rate, Article 28(3) of the Act on the Payment of Charges in Kind, Article 32 of the Act on the Reversion of Collected Charges, Article 23 of the Constitution on the Guarantee of Property Rights, Article 13(2) of the Act on the Prohibition of Retroactive Legislation, Article 11(1)

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of each of the above constitutional provisions. There is no reason to discuss.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found, based on macroscopic evidence, that the defendant imposed an excess amount of KRW 110,304,80 on the plaintiff on June 29, 1993, imposed an excess amount of KRW 110,304,80 on the plaintiff, and found that the excess amount of KRW 193 as stated in the attached Table 1, 2 of the judgment of the court below was omitted during the 1992-year period between the excess amount of KRW 193 as stated in the attached Table 3, 4, and 5 and the excess amount of KRW 92 as stated in the attached Table 3, 4, and notified the plaintiff prior to the disposition of this case. The notice states that the grounds for calculation of the charge are specified, such as the location and area of the land subject to imposition, the excess amount period, and the rate of imposition, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the administrative act.

The ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

In full view of the provisions of Article 2 (2) of the Addenda of the Act and Articles 2 and 3 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the owners of housing sites and housing sites owned by each household in excess of the upper limit of the ownership of each household at the time of the enforcement of the Act shall submit a use plan under the provisions of Articles 10 through 15 of the Act within three months from the date of the enforcement of the Act and shall be excluded from the imposition of charges only if they are disposed of, used and developed in accordance with the plan for use that was later submitted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu20, May 13, 1994).

Therefore, in accordance with the above legal principles, the court below is just in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the land in this case is not subject to the imposition of charges since it was owned by the land at the time of the enforcement of the law, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the duty to submit a plan for use of the land owned at the time of the enforcement of the law. There is no ground

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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)