The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the land for rental housing, Article 5(1)1 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act, Article 4(1) [Attachment Table 1] subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20878, Jun. 25, 2008) (hereinafter “instant provision”) includes “housing site development business” subject to the imposition of development charges, but a project that constructs rental housing pursuant to the Rental Housing Act is excluded from its imposition.

According to the contents and purport of the instant provision, it is reasonable to view that the construction project of rental housing included in the housing site development project is separate from the housing site development project in a normative aspect regarding the imposition of development charges.

Therefore, in this case, the development charges should be imposed by calculating the development gains based on the land price of the land subject to the housing site development project except the land subject to the rental housing construction project.

(2) According to the instant provisions, the lower court determined that the land price of rental housing cannot be included in the calculation of development gains from the instant housing site development project on the grounds that the instant housing site development project is excluded from the subject of the imposition of development charges, and that the creation of the instant housing site does not seem to have contributed to the increase in convenience or value of the project site.

(3) Examining the records in accordance with the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

There is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of development gains or development charges.

The Supreme Court Decision 95Nu2968 Decided October 10, 1997 and the Supreme Court Decision 2004Du12698 Decided May 12, 2006 cited in the grounds of appeal are difficult to regard it as a separate business, but the development charges shall be imposed for each project on each land due to the difference in enforcement date of the relevant statutes.