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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Before amendment by Act No. 13006, Jan. 20, 2015;

c. A school site law; hereinafter “school site law”).

Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Act provides, “A project” means a project implemented under the Building Act, the Urban Development Act, the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the Housing Act, the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, and the Industrial Sites and Development Act, which creates and develops land for housing construction of at least 10 households or constructs multi-family housing.” Article 2 Subparag. 3 provides, “A charge for school site” means a charge collected from a person who implements a development project in order to procure school site or to extend a nearest school site if the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, a Metropolitan City Mayor, a Do Governor, or a Special Self-Governing Province Governor is unable to procure school site.” In addition, the former Act on Special Measures for the Construction, etc. of Public Rental Housing (wholly amended by Act No. 9511, Mar

The Public Housing Construction Act (hereinafter referred to as “Public Housing Construction Act”).

Article 12(1) of the Housing Act provides that when an implementation plan is approved under Article 11, designation of an urban development zone under Article 3 of the Urban Development Act, preparation and authorization of an implementation plan under Article 17 of the same Act (Article 11) and approval of a project plan under Article 16 of the Housing Act (Article 20) shall be deemed to have been obtained.

The fact that the project implementer was designated as the project implementer, and the defendant fathercheon-do Mayor was among the complex development projects of this case to the plaintiff on January 10, 2013.