beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's successor's claim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Status 1 of the parties) The Plaintiff was before the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 14344, Dec. 2, 2016) (amended by Act No. 1434, Nov. 4, 2013).
c. The term “former Housing Act”;
(2) Article 32 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27444, Aug. 11, 2016) and Article 37 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27444, Aug. 11, 2016) are a housing association established with authorization of the B
3) The Intervenor joining the Defendant’s Intervenor’s urban development project B (hereinafter “instant project”) in order to create a housing complex, business complex, etc. on the area of 303,429 square meters in Nari-ri, Nari-si.
B) A project implementer implementing the project. B. The Defendant’s Intervenor planned urban gas supply in the instant project district and planned urban gas supply in the instant project district; however, the Defendant’s Intervenor decided that urban gas supply facilities are installed as urban gas supply facilities because urban gas usage fees are relatively low compared to LPG usage and users are improved.
2) According to the relevant statutes, such as the Urban Gas Business Act, etc., the Defendant and the Intervenor agreed on the instant project district through a number of consultations, there were general facility contributions, cooking facility contributions, and cost-bearing facility contributions as urban gas facility contributions. The subject of the dispute in the instant case is the cost-bearing facility contributions. The subject of the dispute is the cost-bearing facility contributions based on the urban gas business entity’s failure to recover investments in an area where economic feasibility falls short, and the subject of the dispute in the instant case provides that the applicant shall share the cost-bearing facility contributions in accordance with the principle of the beneficiary’s burden. B was set at KRW 2.20 million (including value-added tax), and the Intervenor’s Intervenor determined the cost-bearing facility contributions to the Defendant on August 13, 2013 before the “urban gas supply”).