(a) Validity of a disposition imposing development charges by a payment notice with which the amount, calculation basis, etc. are omitted;

(b) Whether any defect in entries can be supplemented by a notice of scheduled payment of charges;

A. Article 15 of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993) and Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act are unlawful if the contents of the disposition of imposition are not stated in the notice of payment, the basis for calculation, the deadline for payment, and the place for payment are omitted in the notice of payment, and the disposition of imposition is unlawful if the contents of the disposition of imposition are not stated in the notice of payment, and the payment are omitted in the notice of payment, the basis for calculation, the deadline for payment, and the place for payment.

B. The disposition of imposition by the imposing authority pursuant to Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13956 of Aug. 12, 1993) prior to the disposition of imposition is that the necessary entry in the notice of scheduled charges issued to the person liable for payment is properly stated, and if the person liable for payment can make a request for a prior notice under Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act based on this, the defect

A.B. Article 15(b) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563, Jun. 11, 1993); Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act; Articles 13 and 14 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13956, Aug. 12, 1993)

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu56 decided May 12, 1987 (Gong1987,980) 83Nu404 decided Feb. 9, 1988 (Gong1988,516) 88Nu7996 decided Nov. 10, 1989 (Gong1990,38) B. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3409 decided Mar. 27, 1991 (Gong191,1304) 92Nu13981 decided Jul. 13, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2317)

The Namsan Workplace Housing Association and 3 others

Attorney Kim Chang-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu34898 delivered on July 27, 1993

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

The grounds of appeal are examined together with the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (to the extent of supplement in case of supplement in the grounds of appeal, since the period for submission expires.

(1) According to Article 15 of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993; hereinafter “the Act”) and Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”), when imposing development charges, the imposing authority shall issue a notice of payment, but the amount to be paid and its calculation basis, payment deadline, and place for payment shall be specified in the notice of payment. The above provisions on the notice of payment in the notice of payment are not merely an administrative convenience, but a provision on the notice of payment in the development charges that are a kind of obligation to pay money under public law that imposes an economic burden on the citizens, which excludes the person of the imposing authority, prudent, and reasonable disposition. At the same time, it is reasonable to view the person liable to pay the disposition as a mandatory provision that has the fundamental purpose to inform the person liable to pay the disposition of the details of the disposition and to give the convenience of filing an objection. Thus, if such a disposition is omitted in the notice of payment,

In addition, in examining the records, it is just that the court below recognized that the defendant did not issue a notice of payment clearly stating the amount to be paid under the above Act and the calculation basis, etc. in imposing the disposition of this case against the plaintiffs.

(2) However, if a person liable for payment can make a request for a review prior to notification under Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree on the basis of the fact that the necessary entries in the notice of scheduled charges issued by the imposing authority to the person liable for payment pursuant to Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree prior to the disposition is properly stated in the notice of scheduled charges issued by the imposing authority pursuant to Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree, it shall be deemed that the defect in the notice of payment can be supplemented or cured because it is apparent that the decision

However, according to the records, on February 15, 1992, the transfer date of the instant disposition, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the scheduled development charges, accompanied by the document stating the amount of development charges to be paid to the Plaintiffs, 3,606,64,600, and the grounds for the calculation thereof. The Plaintiffs filed a request for review prior to the notification based on this, and received a decision to reduce the amount of the development charges to KRW 3,523,895,850, which is the same as the amount at the time of the initial disposition at the time of the instant disposition. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to deem that the defects that exist at the time of the instant disposition at the time of the Defendant’s delivery of the notice of scheduled development charges

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful without being made according to the due payment notice clearly stating the amount to be paid in accordance with the related laws and regulations. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the payment notice of development charges or by violating the rules of evidence, and there is a reason to point this out.

(3) Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)