beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. The grounds for the defendant's assertion in the trial of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance. Even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the trial are re-examineed, the defendant's assertion is rejected, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the plaintiff's request
Therefore, the reasoning for the court's explanation on the instant case is as follows: (a) the 10th of the first instance judgment "public housing project" in the 10th of the 10th judgment as "public housing project"; (b) the 10th of the 19th judgment added the following details between the 19th and 20th of the 10th judgment; and (c) the 6th of the 11th to 12th of the 12th judgment deleted the 3rd of the 11th judgment, and therefore, (d) the 10th
C. The term "public housing" or "public housing" under subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the former Public Housing Act means a public housing project operator who constructs or purchases and supplies public rental housing (housing supplied for the purpose of lease) with the financial support of the State or a local government or the Housing and Urban Fund, or a public housing unit (housing less than 85 square meters per house or household, the exclusive residential area of which supplied for the purpose of sale is less than 85 square meters per house or household). Since D Corporation is a private housing site for a project to build a collective housing with a total of 220 households exceeding a national housing scale, not a public housing unit, and sells the housing site to the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the project to create such housing site falls under the "housing site creation project following the implementation of development charges" under Article 4 (2) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Gains Refund Act according to subparagraph 1 (b) of subparagraph 1 of the same Article and its delegation, and there is no reason to exclude it from the development project subject to development charges.
“”
2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is examined.