[1] Whether changing the form and quality of farmland within an urban planning zone constitutes a development project subject to development charges (affirmative)

[2] Criteria for determining the scale of the development project subject to the development charges

[3] The area of land which is the basis for calculating development gains

[1] In order to change the form and quality of land within an urban planning zone, a development project that changes the form and quality of land by obtaining permission to change the form and quality of land under Article 4 (1) of the Urban Planning Act shall be subject to development project, which is subject to development charges.

[2] The size of the development project subject to the development charges shall be determined on the basis of the size of the land subject to the project approved by the relevant law.

[3] The calculation of development gains subject to development charges shall be based on the area of the land where the development project is implemented, and it shall not be based on the portion excluding the area of the land as stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act in the area of the

[1] Article 5 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act, Article 4(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15238 of Dec. 31, 1996), Article 4(1) of the Urban Planning Act / [2] Articles 2 and 5 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act, Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act / [3] Article 5 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act, Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restitution

[2] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu13728 delivered on April 25, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1985) Supreme Court Decision 95Nu10464 delivered on July 12, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2510), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6301 delivered on June 27, 1997 (the same purport) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu3759 delivered on November 25, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 1199), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1177 delivered on July 30, 196 (Gong196Ha, 2689)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Byung-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

vice-markets

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu32329 delivered on July 19, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on May 16, 1994, the court below determined that the Plaintiff’s project of changing the form and quality of the instant land within the urban planning zone by obtaining permission for changing the form and quality of the instant land for building a warehouse for farmers (total of 992 square meters) and changing the form and quality of the instant land into the warehouse site for building a warehouse, and on December 12, 1994, which received a completion inspection from the Defendant on December 12, 1994, constitutes a development project subject to the imposition of development charges (hereinafter referred to as “charges”) and the area of the instant land permitted for changing the form and quality of the land constitutes a development project subject to the imposition of development charges (amended by Act No. 4563, Jun. 11, 1993; hereinafter referred to as “Act”) and Article 5(2) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act and Article 14(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15238, Dec. 315, 195, 196, 199). 196).

2. Even if the plaintiff is allowed to divert the land of this case, which is farmland, and construct a store for farming on that ground without obtaining permission to divert farmland, it is required to obtain permission to change the form and quality under Article 4 (1) of the Urban Planning Act from the head of Si/Gun in order to change the form and quality of the land of this case within the urban planning zone, so the development project of this case implemented by the plaintiff is a development project subject to charges.

In addition, in full view of the provisions of Articles 2 and 5 of the Act and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the scale of the development project subject to the charge should be determined based on the area of the land subject to the project approved by the relevant law (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu10464, Jul. 12, 1996). The calculation of development gains subject to the charge is based on the area of the land where the development project is implemented, and it is not based on the area of the land where the development project is implemented, excluding the area of the land stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)