logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.04.11 2018누67246
기반시설부담금 환급금 청구
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant who ordered the plaintiff to pay more than the following amount.

Reasons

The reasons for this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the modification as follows. Thus, this case is quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Revision] Each "this Court" in the Part 9, 15, and 9 of the Judgment of the court of first instance shall be raised to "the court of first instance".

According to the last 8th written judgment of the first instance court, “The above-mentioned facts,” the materials to be submitted for the refund of infrastructure charges in the above-mentioned provisions shall be comprehensively defined as “relevant materials, such as a detailed statement of installation of infrastructure, and materials proving changes and changes in the details of installation of infrastructure,” and the above-mentioned facts, according to the above-mentioned facts.”

(2) The scope of recognition of additional dues (A) The following circumstances revealed prior to the recognition of the scope of recognition of the additional dues on the instant expenses for the installation of a school and relevant statutes, i.e., ① the refund of charges due to the erroneous payment, double payment, or cancellation or correction of the imposition after the erroneous payment,” under Article 17(2)1 of the former Act, did not have an obligation to pay all or part of the amount already paid from the beginning.

On the other hand, “shared money due to an amendment to a construction plan of a payer or any other similar cause” under Article 3 of the same Act means a refund for charges where a cause for refund arises only after the payment of charges was made after the payment of charges. It is interpreted that the Plaintiff’s establishment of the instant land bridge and donation to the Defendant was made only after the Plaintiff paid the existing infrastructure charges.

arrow