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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. We examine the legal principles regarding the deduction and refund of infrastructure charges.

(1) The infrastructure charges system is to have the causing agent bear the cost of installation, maintenance, or improvement of infrastructure, such as roads, parks, green areas, water supply, sewerage, schools, waste disposal facilities, etc. which are caused by the construction of a building.

This was introduced and implemented by the Infrastructure Charges Act (hereinafter "Infrastructure Act"), but it was replaced by the imposition system of infrastructure costs newly established by the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter "National Land Planning Act") on March 28, 2008.

However, the repealed Act stipulated that the infrastructure charges to be imposed or refunded under the previous Act before the abolition shall be governed by the previous Act.

[Article 2 of the Addenda of the Act on the Abolition of Infrastructure Charges (Act No. 9501 of March 28, 2008)] hereinafter simply referred to as the "Act" or the "Enforcement Decree" refers to the Infrastructure Charges Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21038 of September 25, 2008).

Article 8(4) and (5) of the Act on the Charges on Infrastructure prior to the repeal of the said Act provides that “the charges paid by the person liable for payment of the infrastructure charges pursuant to other Acts or the “construction costs” in cases where the infrastructure is donated by installing and donated directly with respect to the relevant development project shall be deducted wholly or partially from the infrastructure charges (Article 8(4) and (5) of the Act). After the payment of the infrastructure charges, when the area subject to the permission has decreased due to the cancellation of the building permit, the modification of the construction plan, or

(Article 17(1) of the Act). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 17(1) of the Act, even in cases where there are “reasons for mutual aid” as provided by Article 8(4) and (5) of the Act.