(a) In imposing expenses shared by beneficiaries, whether an analogical assessment of the relevant land price is made based on the appraisal price on adjacent land;

(b)the meaning of "any significant benefit" which is a prerequisite for the imposition of beneficiary charges under Article 65 (1) of the Urban Planning Act;

A. In the imposition of beneficiary charges under Article 65(1) of the Urban Planning Act and Article 56(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the existence of significant profit, which is the premise of the imposition of beneficiary charges, shall be determined by evaluating the relevant land with a rise in the price. However, the assessment by analogy of the price of the relevant land with an appraisal price for the adjacent land whose base price is the same as that of the relevant land in transaction with the same adjacent land is merely a use of the appraisal price of the relevant land in assessing the relevant land

B. According to Article 56(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, beneficiaries’ charges under the provisions of Article 65(1) of the same Act may be imposed only when the price of the land exceeds twice the amount calculated by adding up the price of the land prior to the implementation of the urban planning project in question. It cannot be readily concluded that there is a significant benefit on the ground that the price of the land has increased more than twice the price of the land prior to the implementation of the project.

Article 65(1) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 56(1) of Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The head of Dong-si in Gwangju

Gwangju High Court Decision 82Gu72 delivered on February 22, 1983

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

1. We examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3 of the Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant.

In the imposition of beneficiary charges under Article 65(1) of the Urban Planning Act and Article 56(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the existence of significant benefit, which is the premise of the imposition of beneficiary charges, shall be determined by evaluating the land at which the price has risen, and the existence of significant benefit in lieu of the evaluation of the land at issue is not determined. However, the assessment of the price of the land at issue with the price of the adjacent land at which the standard condition at the market price at the transaction price at the relevant land is identical is merely merely a use of the appraisal price of the adjacent land in assessing the land at issue. Thus, the assessment method cannot be seen as an unlawful assessment method as long as the standard condition at the market price at the relevant adjacent land at the market price is identical.

In this case, the court below assessed the price before and after the implementation of the urban planning project based on the appraisal price of the neighboring land where the standard conditions for the market price at the instant land and the neighboring land are identical. In light of the records, the court below's decision is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the validity of the disposition imposing the beneficiary's charges, and the timely decision of the lawsuit does not conflict with the member's judgment.

2. We examine the ground of appeal No. 4.

According to the provisions of Article 56 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, the beneficiary charges under the provisions of Article 65 (1) of the Act shall be imposed only when the price of the land exceeds twice the total amount of natural increase in the price before the implementation of the relevant urban planning project due to the implementation of the relevant urban planning project, and Article 2 of the Ordinance on the Beneficiary Charges for the Urban Planning Project in Gwangju-si stipulates to the same purport. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there is a significant benefit because the price of the land has increased more than twice the price before the implementation of the project, and it can be said that there is a significant benefit only when the fact that the price of the land has

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that 160,000 won at the ordinary party market price as of April 7, 197, which was at the time when the urban planning project was publicly announced for the urban planning project of 64.4m2, which is the land of this case and the neighboring land having the same market price, was 80,000 won at the time of completion of the urban planning project, and 500% higher than the price at the time of the public notice, and determined that there was a significant benefit by calculating the total amount of 500% higher than the price at the time of the public notice.

However, as mentioned above, the above judgment below should be erroneous since it should be calculated as to whether the price before the implementation of the project has increased more than twice or more times based on the aggregate amount of natural inflation, and the amount of profits should be calculated, and even if examining the entries of Gap evidence No. 4-4 and Eul evidence No. 4, which are used as evidence for the above fact-finding, as evidence, the court below did not have to know about the nature increase during the urban planning project period of the above ( Address omitted) site, and there is no other information to know about this.

Ultimately, the lower court determined that there was a significant benefit by deeming that there was a rise of 500% of the price before the implementation of the project without considering natural rise, on the ground that the lower court committed an unlawful act of misunderstanding the interpretation of the Act on a conspicuous Benefit as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act and the Municipal Ordinance, and there is a reasonable ground for discussing that the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations on the remaining grounds of appeal. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal,

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)