The meaning of "a project portion newly commenced with the authorization of a development project after the enforcement date of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by August 12, 1993)" under paragraph (2) of the Addenda of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 1358, Aug. 12,

According to Article 4 (2) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 13956, Aug. 12, 1993, the amended provisions of Article 4 concerning the scale of a project subject to development charges shall apply from the new commencement with the approval, etc. of the development project after August 12, 1993, the enforcement date of the Enforcement Decree after the amendment. In light of Articles 5, 8, 9 (1) and (2) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act amended by Act No. 4563, Jun. 11, 1993, Articles 4 and 7 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act after the amendment, and Article 4 and 9 (2) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree after the amendment shall not apply to the new commencement with the approval, etc. after the enforcement date of the new development project after the amendment until the enforcement date of the new development project after the amendment.

Articles 5, 8, and 9(1) and (2) of the former Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995), Article 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13956 of Aug. 12, 1993), Articles 4 and 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14373 of Sept. 1, 1994), and 2 of the Addenda of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14373 of Aug. 12, 1993)

Maumco Co., Ltd.

Asan City

Daejeon High Court Decision 97Gu551 delivered on September 30, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

According to paragraph (2) of the Addenda of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13956, Aug. 12, 1993; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree before the amendment"), Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act concerning the scale of a project subject to development charges shall apply from the new project commencement with the authorization, etc. obtained after August 12, 1993, the enforcement date of the amendment, and Articles 5, 8, 9 (1) and (2) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act as amended by Presidential Decree No. 4563, and Articles 4 and 7 of the Enforcement Decree after the amendment, [Attachment 2], and Paragraph (2) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree after the amendment shall not apply to the new project commencement with the authorization, etc. for the first time after the amendment until the enforcement date of the Act.

Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the development project of this case executed by the plaintiff is not subject to development charges under 3,300 square meters, which is the scale subject to development charges under Article 4 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree before the amendment, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the ground of appeal. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, although it is not appropriate for the court below to make the above determination as one of the grounds for the above determination that the date of reporting the establishment of the development project of this case was prior to the amendment and the enforcement date of the Enforcement Decree, but such error did not affect the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)