Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kim Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Goyang market (Law Firm Hoh, Attorneys Kim Young-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

December 13, 2013

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap929 Decided July 26, 2011

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of development charges of KRW 14,585,225,580 on December 4, 2009 against the Plaintiff and KRW 13,091,840 on March 11, 2011 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition and related statutes;

The grounds for this part are as stated in the relevant part of the judgment of the first instance.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

In light of the purport of Article 5(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act and Article 5(1)4 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (hereinafter “Act”), the Plaintiff first claims that the rental housing site should be supplied at a price below the development cost. The Plaintiff’s development charges system under the Public Health Unit and the Restitution of Development Gains Act (hereinafter “Act”) should deduct losses incurred from the development of the said site when calculating the development gains from the instant development project. In the event that, as a result of the developer’s implementation of the development project with the approval from the State or a local government, the land price of the land for the development project is increased and the development gains exceed the normal price increase, the Plaintiff’s economic justice should be realized by recovering the land from the State and distributing the land to the local government to which the land belongs, thereby preventing speculation of the land, and promoting the efficient use of the land. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the development project subject to the development charges include housing site development projects, housing site development projects under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, housing site development projects under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, etc. are excluded from the Plaintiff’s construction charges under the Rental Housing Act for five or more years.

In addition, according to the relevant laws and regulations, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant exceeded the land excluded from the imposition of development charges, and imposed development charges on the land for relocation measures, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's above assertion. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Judge)