[1] Whether the land price at the time of commencement of the development project can be calculated based on the status after the development project was implemented (negative)

[2] The time of completion of a housing site development project under Article 9 (3) 2 of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act

[3] The meaning of expenses disbursed in relation to the implementation of the pertinent development project under Article 11(1) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act and Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

[1] In light of the purpose of the development charges system, since the land at the time of commencement of the development project should be calculated based on the status where the development project was not implemented, the land price calculated based on the status after the implementation of the development project can not be deemed the land price at the time of commencement. This legal principle likewise applies to the case where the land price at the time of commencement is calculated based

[2] If a project implementer has commenced a housing construction work on the land after completing housing construction site creation in accordance with Article 9(3)2 of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993), the starting time of the construction work shall be the time of completion of the housing site preparation project because the starting time of the construction work on the land falls under the “when the use for the purpose of the development project begins”.

[3] Article 2 of the former Addenda of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13956 of Dec. 30, 1989) stipulates that the time of commencement of the development project shall be deemed to be January 1, 1990, which is the date of entry into force of the above Act, and that in calculating the development charges, the situation before the enforcement date of the above Act should be considered and only the conditions thereafter should be considered. Thus, even if the development charges were commenced before the enforcement date of the above Act, it shall not be deemed that the implementation of the development project was commenced after the enforcement date of the above Act, which is deemed to be the time of commencement of the development project pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda of the above Act. Therefore, in such a case, the expenses disbursed in relation to the implementation of the pertinent development project referred to in Article 11(1) and Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13956 of Aug. 12, 1993) shall be deemed to mean only

[1] Article 10(3) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993) / [2] Article 9(3)2 of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993) / [3] Article 11(1) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993), Article 2 of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 4563 of Dec. 30, 1989), Article 10(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13956 of Aug. 12, 1993)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12821 delivered on February 10, 1995 / [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Nu7495 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1345) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu7617 delivered on April 26, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1509)

Railroad Welfare Housing Association and one other (Attorney Jeong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu35744 delivered on July 27, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to the first, second, and third points

In light of the purpose of the development charges system, since the land at the time of commencement of a development project should be calculated based on the condition that the development project has not been implemented, the land price calculated based on the condition after the development project has been implemented cannot be deemed the land price at the time of commencement. Such a legal principle applies likewise to cases where the land price at the time of commencement is calculated based on the actual purchase price (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12821, Feb. 10, 195).

In light of the records, the purchase price or land transaction report price from the non-party company that acquired the land from the non-party company's private housing construction project and the land subject to the project is based on the conditions after the development project of the non-party company was implemented, and it cannot be considered the land price at the time of commencement of the first development project of this case. Meanwhile, the price calculation at the time of commencement of the development project under the proviso of Article 10 (3) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") applies exceptionally to the case where the non-party company vindicates it by the time of the closure of the fact-finding proceedings. Thus, the non-party company does not have a duty to examine the plaintiffs' assertion and admission to the initial purchase price at the time of acquiring the land subject to the project from the non-party company. And even if the plaintiffs purchased the land from the non-party company from the non-party company or the non-party company purchased it from the non-party company from the non-party company.

Therefore, the decision of the court below as to the land price at the time of commencement of the first development project in this case, for which the project implementation was not completed at the time of the enforcement of the Act, is just in calculating the individual land price of the land subject to the project at the time of January 1, 1990 (the time of commencement of the first development project), and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, or there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the price calculation at the time of commencement of the development project, as otherwise

On the fourth ground

In accordance with Article 9 (3) 2 of the Act, if a project implementer starts housing construction work on the land after the completion of housing construction site preparation for the housing construction project pursuant to the provision of Article 9 (3) 2 of the Act, the Supreme Court's established opinion that the commencement period falls under "when the construction project starts for the purpose of the development project" and the completion period of the housing site preparation project falls under "when the construction project starts for the purpose of the development project" (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Nu7495 delivered on March 22, 1994). In light of the records, the court below's decision that the completion period of the second development project of this case is the commencement period of the construction project of this case due to the confirmation is justifiable and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the completion period of the development project, as alleged in the ground for appeal. The ground for appeal

On the fifth ground

Article 2 of the Addenda of the Act is deemed to have been deemed to have commenced the development project on January 1, 1990, which is the date of commencement of the development project, and to have been deemed to have been the only cost required after January 1, 1990, which is the date of entry into force of the Act, in calculating the development charges. Thus, even if the project was commenced before the date of entry into force of the Act, it shall not be deemed that the implementation of the development project was commenced on the date of entry into force of the Act pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda of the Act, even if the project was commenced before the date of entry into force of the Act, and therefore, in such case, the cost disbursed in relation to the implementation of the development project concerned under Article 11(1) of the Act and Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13956, Aug. 12, 193) shall not be deemed to have been the only cost required after January 1, 199, and it shall not be accepted.

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)