The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the succession to the status of a project implementer

A. Article 6(1)3 of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9045, Mar. 28, 2008; hereinafter “former Restitution of Development Gains Act”) provides that where the status of a project implementer is succeeded before completion of the development project, the person who succeeded to the status as a project implementer is obligated to pay the development charges.

Unless there are special circumstances, such as that it is impossible to make an agreement on the succession of development gains and development charges on the premise that an agreement on the succession of development gains and development charges is possible between the parties who succeed to the development project and the parties who succeed to the status of the project should bear the responsibility to pay the development charges, taking into account the fact that it is not easy to take into account the development gains accrued until the succession of the development project and the development gains accrued after the succession.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Du2655 Decided April 12, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2008Du19321 Decided March 12, 2009). In addition, the court determines whether the assertion is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the ideology of social justice and equity by free evaluation of evidence, taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of examination of evidence into account, and the facts duly confirmed by the court of final appeal that the judgment below did not go beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

(Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 202 and 432 of the Civil Procedure Act). (b)

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court: (a) based on the instant agreement entered into between D (hereinafter “D”) and the Plaintiff, a development project (hereinafter “instant apartment”) that constructs 42 apartment buildings (hereinafter “instant apartment buildings”) on the land of 84,181 square meters in the land of 33,00,000,000, which is located within the limit of 33,000 square meters in the G-si.