[1] Where a corrective disposition is taken to reduce or correct development charges after an appellate judgment was rendered, the Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit regarding the claim for cancellation of the imposition of development charges for the reduced portion

[2] The meaning of "the point at which the imposition is terminated" under Article 2 (2) of the Addenda of the Restitution of Development Gains Act ( January 13, 1997) which provides for the precedent of the application of the reduction of development charges.

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which calculated the development gains of Gap's land at the end point of time Gap's land and Eul's land at the end point of time Gap's land at the end point of time after calculating the development gains of Gap's land at the end point of time Gap's land, Eul's land at Gap's land and Byung's land at the end point of time of whole completion

[1] In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a disposition imposing development charges on land A and B, where the appellate court sentenced the revocation of the judgment that exceeds the development charges on land A during the disposition imposing development charges, and the head of a local government made an appeal against the part against which the appellate court judgment lost even though the original disposition imposing the development charges on land A was made, the case dismissing the lawsuit as to the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing development charges on the reduced portion on the ground that the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing the development charges on the reduced portion becomes effective for the revocation of the part against which the original disposition was partially extinguished, on the grounds that the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing the development charges on

[2] It shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law in interpreting the Addenda which can provide special provisions on the point of application of Article 7 (3) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 5285 of Jan. 13, 1997), which is a preferential provision for exemption from development charges. It shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. Article 9 (3) and (4) of the same Act and Articles 7 (3) and 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide the specific time of termination of the development project, i.e., when the development project, which is the requirement for imposition of development charges. Meanwhile, Article 14 (1) of the same Act provides that the imposing authority may exercise the right to impose on the person liable for payment at the time of completion of the imposition. However, since it is difficult to calculate development charges due to the difficulty in calculating the development charges if a project falls under a part of a large-scale project, it shall be interpreted that the period of imposition of development charges can be terminated after the completion of the development project.

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which calculated the development gains of Gap's land after calculating the development gains of Gap's land at the end point of time Gap's land, Eul's land, and Byung's entire land completion point of time, and calculated the development gains of Gap's land in the way of dividing the development gains of Gap's land at the end point of time Gap's land, Eul's land, and Byung's entire land completion point of time into the different periods of time, but these development projects have not been implemented separately, but are an industrial complex development project implemented as one with mutual organic relations with the same project approval, and it is difficult to calculate the development costs of Gap's land only.

[1] Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 7 (3), 9 (3) and (4), and 14 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act, and Article 19 (2) of the Addenda to the Act on the Promotion of Development Gains / [3] Articles 8 and 11 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act

Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd. (Attorney Go Young-ap et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Asan City

Daejeon High Court Decision 2000Nu1650 delivered on October 8, 2004

The part concerning the claim for revocation of the portion exceeding 7,937,736,480 won among the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and this part of the lawsuit is dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. The total cost of the lawsuit in the dismissed portion is assessed against the

1. First, we examine ex officio (the part on which the defendant appealed).

According to the records, as to the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the imposition of development charges of KRW 14,434,786,80 (hereinafter "the disposition of this case") on March 8, 2001 as to the land of this case, 826,462 square meters (hereinafter "the entire land of this case") and 203,957 square meters (hereinafter "the entire land of this case") among the land of this case 1,81,58 m2 (hereinafter "the whole land of this case") located in Indones-si, Indo-si, Indo-si, Indo-si, the defendant's original disposition of this case was revoked on October 8, 2004 on the ground that only the part of the land of this case 1,81,585 m2 is subject to the imposition of development charges, the court below decided to reduce the amount exceeding the development charges of this case on the ground that the original disposition of this case was revoked on the ground that the part of the development charges of this case of this case was revoked 37374, and thus, the defendant's.

2. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

A. As to the grounds of appeal on the interpretation of the Addenda of this case

Article 7(3) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 5285, Jan. 13, 1997; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that an industrial complex development project under the Industrial Sites and Development Act shall be exempted from development charges, and Article 7(2) and Article 7(3) of the Addenda of the Act provides that an amended provision shall apply to an industrial complex development project under the Industrial Sites and Development Act (hereinafter referred to as the "the Addenda of this case") where three months have not elapsed since the end of the imposition at the time of the Act, and the requirements for imposition of development charges are completed, i.e., the Act at the time of the completion of the imposition at the time of the completion of the development project, which is applicable to the industrial complex development project under the Industrial Sites and Development Act after the enforcement date of Article 7(3) of the Act, but the transitional provisions for the expiration of the imposition at the time of application of Article 7(3) of the Act, and the industrial complex development project may be exempted from development charges under the Act within the period of March 197.

However, the interpretation of the Addenda of this case, which can provide special provisions on the point of application of Article 7 (3) of the Act, which is the preferential provision for the exemption of development charges, shall be interpreted in accordance with the law, and it shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without any reasonable reason. In light of Article 9 (3) and (4) of the Act and Articles 7 (3) and 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, which are the requirement for the imposition of development charges, specifically provide for the point of termination of the development project, i.e., when the development project, which is the requirement for the imposition of the development charges. Meanwhile, Article 14 (1) of the Act provides that the imposing authority may exercise the right to impose on the person liable for payment as a matter of principle when the completion of the imposition comes, but it is difficult to calculate the development charges because it is a provision on the point of imposition and decision of the development charges that can be done after the completion of the whole project, it means Article 9 (3) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

In the same purport, the court below is just in determining that the land No. 1 is subject to development charges on the ground that the time of termination of the imposition of the land No. 1 in this case is the date on which the report on the commencement of construction pursuant to the Building Act was filed pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act. Thus, since the land No. 1 in this case cannot benefit from the exemption of development charges pursuant to Article 7 (3) of the Act, the court below's decision is just, and in the case of Article 14 (1) of the Act, the land No. 1 in this case shall be deemed to be "where three months have not elapsed from the time of termination of the imposition" under Article 14 (2) of the Addenda of this case. The ground of appeal that the court below did not accept as an independent opinion. There is no error of law

B. As to the ground of appeal regarding the calculation method of development charges on the land No. 1 of this case

Considering that the Plaintiff’s development gains from August 31, 194 were approved by the competent Do governor pursuant to Article 18 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act, and the development project was commenced on May 6, 1995, the lower court first commenced using the land of this case for its original purpose. On February 13, 1996, the lower court commenced using the land of this case as the final parking lot. The Plaintiff completed the development project for the entire land of this case on December 24, 1997 and obtained authorization of the completion of the development project in accordance with Article 37 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act, the total amount of the development gains from this case’s entire land of this case’s whole land of this case’s 234,867 square meters (hereinafter “the land of this case”) out of the total development gains from this case’s whole land of this case’s 14th project, and the total amount of the development gains from this case’s land of this case’s 14th project after the completion of the development project.

Supreme Court Decision 2002Du868 Decided July 22, 2004, which is pointed out by the plaintiff in the ground of appeal, is not appropriate to be invoked in this case with the different purport from the case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below that seeks revocation of the disposition of imposition regarding the reduced development charges exceeding 7,937,736,480 won shall be reversed, and this Court directly decides to revoke this part of the judgment of the court of first instance and dismiss this part of the lawsuit. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit in the dismissed part shall be borne by the defendant, who is the losing part of the appeal dismissed, by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)